Estimating the COVID-19 infection fatality ratio accounting for seroreversion using statistical modelling.
Computational biology and bioinformatics
Respiratory tract diseases
Journal
Communications medicine
ISSN: 2730-664X
Titre abrégé: Commun Med (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918250414506676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
13
08
2021
accepted:
22
03
2022
entrez:
23
5
2022
pubmed:
24
5
2022
medline:
24
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The infection fatality ratio (IFR) is a key statistic for estimating the burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been continuously debated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The age-specific IFR can be quantified using antibody surveys to estimate total infections, but requires consideration of delay-distributions from time from infection to seroconversion, time to death, and time to seroreversion (i.e. antibody waning) alongside serologic test sensitivity and specificity. Previous IFR estimates have not fully propagated uncertainty or accounted for these potential biases, particularly seroreversion. We built a Bayesian statistical model that incorporates these factors and applied this model to simulated data and 10 serologic studies from different countries. We demonstrate that seroreversion becomes a crucial factor as time accrues but is less important during first-wave, short-term dynamics. We additionally show that disaggregating surveys by regions with higher versus lower disease burden can inform serologic test specificity estimates. The overall IFR in each setting was estimated at 0.49-2.53%. We developed a robust statistical framework to account for full uncertainties in the parameters determining IFR. We provide code for others to apply these methods to further datasets and future epidemics.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The infection fatality ratio (IFR) is a key statistic for estimating the burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been continuously debated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The age-specific IFR can be quantified using antibody surveys to estimate total infections, but requires consideration of delay-distributions from time from infection to seroconversion, time to death, and time to seroreversion (i.e. antibody waning) alongside serologic test sensitivity and specificity. Previous IFR estimates have not fully propagated uncertainty or accounted for these potential biases, particularly seroreversion.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We built a Bayesian statistical model that incorporates these factors and applied this model to simulated data and 10 serologic studies from different countries.
Results
UNASSIGNED
We demonstrate that seroreversion becomes a crucial factor as time accrues but is less important during first-wave, short-term dynamics. We additionally show that disaggregating surveys by regions with higher versus lower disease burden can inform serologic test specificity estimates. The overall IFR in each setting was estimated at 0.49-2.53%.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
We developed a robust statistical framework to account for full uncertainties in the parameters determining IFR. We provide code for others to apply these methods to further datasets and future epidemics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35603270
doi: 10.1038/s43856-022-00106-7
pii: 106
pmc: PMC9120146
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
54Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 200861/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19012
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/J008761/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R015600/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsPGTW is an Editorial Board Member for Communications Medicine, but was not involved in the editorial review or peer review, nor in the decision to publish this article. The other authors have no competing interests to declare.
Références
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;21(2):203-212
pubmed: 33091374
Science. 2020 Dec 11;370(6522):1339-1343
pubmed: 33159009
Epidemiology. 2021 Jul 1;32(4):518-524
pubmed: 33935138
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Apr;21(4):e75-e76
pubmed: 32763195
Sci Immunol. 2020 Dec 7;5(54):
pubmed: 33288645
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;20(6):669-677
pubmed: 32240634
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Apr;21(4):e69-e70
pubmed: 32679085
Science. 2020 Jul 10;369(6500):208-211
pubmed: 32404476
Nat Commun. 2021 Apr 22;12(1):2394
pubmed: 33888698
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Dec;35(12):1123-1138
pubmed: 33289900
Am J Epidemiol. 1978 Jan;107(1):71-6
pubmed: 623091
J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb 13;223(3):389-398
pubmed: 33140086
Cell. 2020 Oct 1;183(1):158-168.e14
pubmed: 32979941
Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1200-1204
pubmed: 32555424
Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Jan 01;99(1):19-33F
pubmed: 33716331
Nat Microbiol. 2020 Dec;5(12):1598-1607
pubmed: 33106674
Nature. 2021 Feb;590(7844):140-145
pubmed: 33137809
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):533-534
pubmed: 32087114
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;101:138-148
pubmed: 33007452
Science. 2020 Jul 24;369(6502):413-422
pubmed: 32532802
J Infect Dis. 2020 Sep 1;222(7):1086-1089
pubmed: 32750135
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;21(1):27-28
pubmed: 32473661
J Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 9;222(11):1772-1775
pubmed: 32856712
Nat Commun. 2020 Sep 17;11(1):4704
pubmed: 32943637
Sci Transl Med. 2021 Jul 14;13(602):
pubmed: 34158411
Sci Adv. 2021 Jul 30;7(31):
pubmed: 34330709
Eur J Clin Invest. 2021 May;51(5):e13554
pubmed: 33768536
Front Public Health. 2020 Dec 15;8:578645
pubmed: 33384978