Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in India, March 2020 to August 2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: International journal of infectious diseases Vol. 116; pp. 59 - 67
• Main Authors: Jahan, Nuzrath, Brahma, Adarsha, Kumar, Muthusamy Santhosh, Bagepally, Bhavani Shankara, Ponnaiah, Manickam, Bhatnagar, Tarun, Murhekar, Manoj V
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada Elsevier Ltd 01.03.2022; The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases; Elsevier
• Subjects: Antibodies, Viral; COVID-19; COVID-19 - epidemiology; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Meta-analysis; Pandemics; Review; SARS-CoV-2; Seroepidemiologic Studies; Seroprevalence; Systematic review; COVID-19; Systematic review; SARS-CoV-2; Seroprevalence; Meta-analysis
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.12.353
• ISSN: 1201-9712

•We reviewed and synthesized the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 from 53 studies in India.•Overall pooled seroprevalence was 20.7% and 69.2% in the first and second wave.•In both waves, seroprevalence was higher in urban than in rural areas.•Studies showed inadequacy in reporting methodology.•We recommend designing and reporting studies using standard protocols. Introduction: India experienced 2 waves of COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 and reported the second highest caseload globally. Seroepidemiologic studies were done to track the course of the pandemic. We systematically reviewed and synthesized the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the 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 patients with COVID-19 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 905379 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, nonrepresentative sample, nonclassification of nonrespondents, 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 the second, it increased with age. Seroprevalence was slightly higher among women in the second wave. In both the waves, the estimate was higher in urban than in rural areas. Conclusion: Seroprevalence increased by 3-fold between the 2 waves of the pandemic in India. Our review highlights the need for designing and reporting studies using standard protocols.