Could antibody serologic tests downplay SARS-CoV-2 virus prevalence?
Antibody studies might underestimate the share of a population that has been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Most antibody tests have been validated using blood samples from people hospitalized with severe disease. But these individuals, who make up only a small fraction of infected people, might have higher levels of antibodies circulating in their body than have people with mild or no symptoms.

In response to a pathogen attack, immune cells produce molecules called antibodies, which can linger in the blood and provide a record of infection. Isabel Rodríguez-Barraquer at the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues identified a potential source of bias in tests that detect the presence of antibodies against the new coronavirus. [1]

Growing evidence suggests that asymptomatic and mild SARS-CoV-2 infections, together comprising >95% of all infections, may be associated with lower antibody titers than severe infections. [2-6] In addition, antibody levels peak a few weeks after infection and decay gradually. Yet, positive controls used for determining the sensitivity of serological assays are usually limited to samples from hospitalised patients with severe disease, leading to what is commonly known as spectrum bias in estimating seroprevalence in the general population. [7-8]

Assay validation requires samples from individuals with known infection status in order to determine test performance characteristics (i.e., sensitivity and specificity). Due to potential cross-reactivity of antibody responses to seasonal coronaviruses, much of the focus of assay development has been on ensuring near perfect specificity, to minimize the risk of false positive results. This is particularly important during early stages of the epidemic, when the number of true positives is expected to be very low. However, if the purpose of deploying a serological assay is to quantify the proportion of the population that has been infected by SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., serosurveillance), adequate characterization of assay sensitivity to detect prior infection in the general population is important as well. [9]

Assays with imperfect sensitivity lead to underestimates of the true seroprevalence, but can be easily corrected for if the actual sensitivity of the assay in the sampled population is known. However, if test sensitivity has been determined from positive control sets skewed towards those with severe clinical outcomes (high antibody levels), the measured prevalence, even after correction, will still underestimate the true prevalence. The magnitude of the underestimate will depend on how biased the distribution of positive controls is relative to the population, and on how much assay sensitivity varies with disease severity. Similarly, corrected prevalence will only equal the true prevalence if decreases in sensitivity due to waning antibody responses over time can be accounted for. [1]

These results have important implications for assay development and for the interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies. First, they highlight the need to quantify the extent to which the sensitivity of the assays used in ongoing serosurveillance studies varies with disease severity and over time. Incorporating loss of sensitivity with increasing time since infection will gain importance as the pandemic progresses. More importantly, these results highlight the need for detailed studies characterizing kinetics of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 across the severity spectrum. If antibody responses are significantly lower in milder cases, or if there is significant waning in the months following infection, assays for seroprevalence studies should be optimized to detect these lower titers. Finally, these results caution against accepting aggregate sensitivities and specificities reported by assay manufacturers at face value. Ideally, sensitivities and specificities should be stratified by disease severity and time since infection, and the characteristics of the validation set should be reported at a minimum. [1]

The researchers say more detailed studies are needed to assess how well antibody tests detect previous infection in people who had mild disease.

These findings have not yet been peer reviewed.


  1. Takahashi, S., Greenhouse, B., & Rodríguez-Barraquer, I. (2020, May 30). Are SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates biased?.
  2. Whitman JD, Hiatt J, Mowery CT, et al. Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS). 2020; published online April 29.
  3. Okba NMA, Muller MA, Li W, et al. SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody responses in COVID-19 patients. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS). 2020; published online March 20.
  4. Wu F, Wang A, Liu M, et al. Neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in a COVID-19 recovered patient cohort and their implications. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS). 2020; published online April 6.
  5. Ferguson NM, Laydon D, Nedjati-Gilani G, Imai N, Ainslie K, Baguelin M. Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand.
  6. Cervia C, Nilsson J, Zurbuchen Y, et al. Systemic and mucosal antibody secretion specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19. bioRxiv. 2020;
  7. Sethuraman N, Jeremiah SS, Ryo A. Interpreting Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA 2020; published online May 6.
  8. Rosado J, Cockram C, Merkling S, et al. Serological signatures of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Implications for antibody-based diagnostics. 2020; published online May 11.
  9. Krammer F, Simon V. Serology assays to manage COVID-19. Science 2020; published online May 15.


medical devices

Safety Reporting in Clinical Investigations: a Gap Analysis of Guidance Documents 

Safety reporting in clinical investigations of medical devices shall be performed in line with Article 80(2) of the EU MDR. On May 2020, it was published the MDCG 2020-10/1, outlining the procedures for safety reporting in clinical investigations of medical devices under the EU MDR. However, on October 2022 the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) published an updated version of the MDCG 2020-10/1, the MDCG 2020-10/1 Rev 1. This article highlights the updates included in the new revision, analysing the gaps between both documents.

Read More »
medical devices

Roles and Responsibilities of an Authorised Representative under EU MDR and IVDR 

If a medical device manufacturer is not established in a Member State, the devices can only be placed on the Union market if the manufacturer designates an authorised representative. The authorised representative plays a pivotal role in ensuring the compliance of the devices with EU regulation, serving as point of contact. The obligations and responsibilities of authorised representative are outlined on Article 11 of both MDR and IVDR, but clarification of relevant requirements is described in MDCG 2022-16 of October 2022.

Read More »
medical devices

Understanding the ISO Standards Lifecycle

ISO Standards cover a huge range of activities, representing the distilled wisdom of people with expertise in their subject matter and providing the regulators with a sound basis to develop better legislation. ISO Standards are diverse, addressing from the shoe size we wear to the quality of air we breathe. The medical device sector is no exception. ISO has many International Standards and guidance documents aimed at helping the sector ensure safe and effective medical devices while meeting the multitude of national, regional and international regulatory requirements. But how exactly is a Standard developed, reviewed and withdraw?

Read More »
medical devices

Amendments to the Transitional Provisions of the European Union MDR and IVDR

The proposed amendments aim to maintain patients’ access to a wide range of medical devices while ensuring the transition to the new framework. The ammendments proposal aims to extend the current transition period (Article 120 of the MDR), and it also deletes the ‘sell-off’ deadlines of both MDR and IVDR. The extension is staggered depending on the risk class of the device – until December 2027 for high-risk devices and December 2028 for medium and lower-risk devices.

Read More »
medical devices

EU MDR – Proposal for Extension of Transition Period

The transition to MDR has been slower than anticipated by the European Commission. Insufficient capacity of notified bodies and the low level of preparedness of manufacturers led to a proposal for extension of current MDR transition period with deadlines depending on the risk class of the devices.

Read More »
medical devices

MDCG 2022-18 – EU MDR Article 97

EU MDR Article 97 may be a temporary solution to avoid disruption of supply of Medical Devices on the EU Market. The MDCG 2022-18 presents a uniform approach for application of MDR Article 97 on non-compliant legacy devices under the conditions set by the competent authorities, while limiting the impact on the supply of safe and effective devices.

Read More »
cosmetic products

EU to set Labelling Requirements for 56 additional Fragrance Allergens in Cosmetic Products

World Trade Organization (WTO) has been notified by the European Commission of a draft amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 as regards labelling of fragrance allergens in Cosmetic Products. The proposed date of adoption of the new regulation is expected to be in the first half of 2023 and the propose date of entry in force 20 days from the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Read More »
cosmetic products

New Amendments to the European Cosmetics Regulation – CMR Substances

The European Commission published the Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1531, which amends Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 in regards to the use in cosmetic products of certain substances classified as CMR. This amendment introduces new entries to Annex II and Annex III and revises an entry to Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.

Read More »