RESUMO
We aimed to estimate the household secondary infection attack rate (hSAR) of SARS-CoV-2 in investigations aligned with the WHO Unity Studies Household Transmission Investigations (HHTI) protocol. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and medRxiv/bioRxiv for Unity-aligned First Few X cases (FFX) and HHTIs published between 1 December 2019 and 26 July 2021. Standardised early results were shared by WHO Unity Studies collaborators (to 1 October 2021). We used a bespoke tool to assess investigation methodological quality. Values for hSAR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted or calculated from crude data. Heterogeneity was assessed by visually inspecting overlap of CIs on forest plots and quantified in meta-analyses. Of 9988 records retrieved, 80 articles (64 from databases; 16 provided by Unity Studies collaborators) were retained in the systematic review and 62 were included in the primary meta-analysis. hSAR point estimates ranged from 2%-90% (95% prediction interval: 3%-71%; I2=99.7%); I2 values remained >99% in subgroup analyses, indicating high, unexplained heterogeneity and leading to a decision not to report pooled hSAR estimates. FFX and HHTI remain critical epidemiological tools for early and ongoing characterisation of novel infectious pathogens. The large, unexplained variance in hSAR estimates emphasises the need to further support standardisation in planning, conduct and analysis, and for clear and comprehensive reporting of FFX and HHTIs in time and place, to guide evidence-based pandemic preparedness and response efforts for SARS-CoV-2, influenza and future novel respiratory viruses.
RESUMO
BackgroundOur understanding of the global scale of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains incomplete: routine surveillance data underestimates infection and cannot infer on population immunity, there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in WHOs Unity protocol for general population seroepidemiological studies, two years into the pandemic, to estimate the extent of population infection and remaining susceptibility. Methods and FindingsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between 2020-01-01 and 2022-05-20. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO, (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies - those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol - were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with Risk of Bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate under-ascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being over-represented. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% LMIC) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/sub-national scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1-62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6-28.8] to 86.7% [84.6-88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3-11.0%] to 95.9% [92.6-97.8%] in Europe high-income countries in December 2021). After the emergence of Omicron, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0-54.9%] in EUR HIC and 33.7% [31.6-36.0%] in AMR HIC in March 2022. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0-9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20-29 (p<0.0001 and p=0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using pre-vaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p=0.02). ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation, however around 40 % of the global population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported COVID-19 cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions.
RESUMO
BackgroundSeroprevalence surveys are essential to assess the age-specific prevalence of pre-existing cross-reactive antibodies in the population with the emergence of a novel pathogen; to measure population cumulative seroincidence of infection, and to contribute to estimating infection severity. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, ECDC and WHO Regional Office for Europe have supported Member States in undertaking standardized population-based SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys across the WHO European Region. ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to undertake a systematic literature review of SARS-CoV-2 population seroprevalence studies undertaken in the WHO European Region to measure pre-existing and cumulative seropositivity prior to the roll out of vaccination programmes. MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, ELSEVIER and the pre-print servers medRxiv and bioRxiv within the "COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease" database using a predefined search strategy. We included seroepidemiology studies published before the widespread implementation of COVID-19 vaccination programmes in January 2021 among the general population and blood donors, at national and regional levels. Study risk of bias was assessed using a quality scoring system based on sample size, sampling and testing methodologies. Articles were supplemented with unpublished WHO-supported Unity-aligned seroprevalence studies and other studies reported directly to WHO Regional Office for Europe and ECDC. ResultsIn total, 111 studies from 26 countries published or conducted between 01/01/2020 and 31/12/2020 across the WHO European Region were included. A significant heterogeneity in implementation was noted across the studies, with a paucity of studies from the east of the Region. Eighty-one (73%) studies were assessed to be of low to medium risk of bias. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity prior to widespread community circulation was very low. National seroprevalence estimates after circulation started ranged from 0% to 51.3% (median 2.2% (IQR 0.7-5.2%); n=124), while sub-national estimates ranged from 0% to 52% (median 5.8% (IQR 2.3-12%); n=101), with the highest estimates in areas following widespread local transmission. ConclusionsThe review found evidence of low national SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (<10%) across the WHO European Region in 2020. The low levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibody in most populations prior to the start of vaccine programmes highlights the critical importance of vaccinating priority groups at risk of severe disease while maintaining reduced levels of transmission to minimize population morbidity and mortality.
RESUMO
BackgroundCountries in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region differ in terms of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out speed. We evaluated the health and economic impact of different age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies across this demographically and socio-economically diverse region. MethodsWe fitted country-specific age-stratified compartmental transmission models to reported COVID-19 mortality in the WHO European Region to inform the immunity level before vaccine roll-out. Building upon broad recommendations from the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation (SAGE), we examined four strategies that prioritise: all adults (V+), younger (20-59 year-olds) followed by older adults (60+) (V20), older followed by younger adults (V60), and the oldest adults (75+) (V75) followed by incremental expansion to successively younger five-year age groups. We explored four roll-out scenarios based on projections or recent observations (R1-4) - the slowest scenario (R1) covers 30% of the total population by December 2022 and the fastest (R4) 80% by December 2021. Five decision-making metrics were summarised over 2021-22: mortality, morbidity, and losses in comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy (cLE), comorbidity- and quality-adjusted life years (cQALY), and the value of human capital (HC). Six sets of infection-blocking and disease-reducing vaccine efficacies were considered. FindingsThe optimal age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies were sensitive to country characteristics, decision-making metrics and roll-out speeds. Overall, V60 consistently performed better than or comparably to V75. There were greater benefits in prioritising older adults when roll-out is slow and when VE is low. Under faster roll-out, V+ was the most desirable option. InterpretationA prioritisation strategy involving more age-based stages (V75) does not necessarily lead to better health and economic outcomes than targeting broad age groups (V60). Countries expecting a slow vaccine roll-out may particularly benefit from prioritising older adults. FundingWorld Health Organization, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Institute of Health Research (United Kingdom), the European Commission, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (United Kingdom), Wellcome Trust Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed and medRxiv for articles published in English from inception to 9 Jun 2021, with the search terms: ("COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2") AND ("priorit*) AND ("model*") AND ("vaccin*") and identified 66 studies on vaccine prioritization strategies. Of the 25 studies that compared two or more age-based prioritisation strategies, 12 found that targeting younger adults minimised infections while targeting older adults minimised mortality; an additional handful of studies found similar outcomes between different age-based prioritisation strategies where large outbreaks had already occurred. However, only two studies have explored age-based vaccine prioritisation using models calibrated to observed outbreaks in more than one country, and no study has explored the effectiveness of vaccine prioritisation strategies across settings with different population structures, contact patterns, and outbreak history. Added-value of this studyWe evaluated various age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies for 38 countries in the WHO European Region using various health and economic outcomes for decision-making, by parameterising models using observed outbreak history, known epidemiologic and vaccine characteristics, and a range of realistic vaccine roll-out scenarios. We showed that while targeting older adults was generally advantageous, broadly targeting everyone above 60 years might perform better than or comparably to a more detailed strategy that targeted the oldest age group above 75 years followed by those in the next younger five-year age band. Rapid vaccine roll-out has only been observed in a small number of countries. If vaccine coverage can reach 80% by the end of 2021, prioritising older adults may not be optimal in terms of health and economic impact. Lower vaccine efficacy was associated with greater relative benefits only under relatively slow roll-out scenarios considered. Implication of all the available evidenceCOVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies that require more precise targeting of individuals of a specific and narrow age range may not necessarily lead to better outcomes compared to strategies that prioritise populations across broader age ranges. In the WHO European Region, prioritising all adults equally or younger adults first will only optimise health and economic impact when roll-out is rapid, which may raise between-country equity issues given the global demand for COVID-19 vaccines.
RESUMO
We assessed the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers (HCWs) from data on 2.9 million cases reported from nine countries in the EU/EEA. Compared to non-HCWs, HCWs had a higher adjusted risk of hospitalization (IRR 3.0 [95% CI 2.2-4.0]), but not death (IRR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-2.0). Article Summary LineHealthcare workers are hospitalized more frequently than non-healthcare workers when adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities.
