Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications

Andrew T. Levin, William P. Hanage, Nana Owusu-Boaitey, Kensington B. Cochran, Seamus P. Walsh, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895

Structured Abstract

Objective Determine age-specific infection fatality rates for COVID-19 to inform public health policies and communications that help protect vulnerable age groups.

Methods Studies of COVID-19 prevalence were collected by conducting an online search of published articles, preprints, and government reports. A total of 111 studies were reviewed in depth and screened. Studies of 33 locations satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Age-specific IFRs were computed using the prevalence data in conjunction with reported fatalities four weeks after the midpoint date of the study, reflecting typical lags in fatalities and reporting. Meta-regression procedures in Stata were used to analyze IFR by age.

Results Our analysis finds a exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFRs are very low for children and younger adults but increase progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.3% at age 65, 4.2% at age 75, and 14% at age 85. We find that differences in the age structure of the population and the age-specific prevalence of COVID-19 explain nearly 90% of the geographical variation in population IFR.

Discussion These results indicate that COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly but also for middle-aged adults, for whom the infection fatality rate is two orders of magnitude greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident and far more dangerous than seasonal influenza. Moreover, the overall IFR for COVID-19 should not be viewed as a fixed parameter but as intrinsically linked to the age-specific pattern of infections. Consequently, public health measures to mitigate infections in older adults could substantially decrease total deaths.

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic has spread across the globe, some fundamental issues have remained unclear: How dangerous is COVID-19? And to whom? Answering these questions will help inform appropriate decision-making by individuals, families, and communities.

The case fatality rate (CFR), the ratio of deaths to reported cases, is commonly used in gauging disease severity. However, this measure can be highly misleading for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, because a high proportion of infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic (especially for younger people) and may not be included in official case reports.[1, 2] Consequently, the infection fatality rate (IFR), the ratio of fatalities to infections, is a more reliable metric than the CFR in assessing the hazards of COVID-19.

Assessing the IFR for COVID-19 is difficult. As shown in Table 1, a recent seroprevalence study by the New York Department of Health estimated ~1·6 million infections among the 8 million residents of NYC, but only one-tenth of those infections were captured in reported COVID-19 cases.[3, 4] About one-fourth of reported cases were severe enough to require hospitalization, many of whom succumbed to the disease. All told, fatalities represented a tenth of reported cases but only a hundredth of all infections.

View this table:
Table 1: COVID-19 Cases in New York City

While the NYC data indicate an IFR of ~1%, analyses of other locations have produced a wide array of IFR estimates, e.g., 0·6% in Geneva, 1·5% in England, and 2·3% in Italy. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis noted the high degree of heterogeneity across aggregate estimates of IFR and concluded that research on age-stratified IFR is “urgently needed to inform policymaking.”[5]

In this paper, we consider the hypothesis that the observed variation in IFR across locations may primarily reflect the age specificity of COVID-19 infections and fatalities. Consequently, this paper reports on a systematic review and meta-analysis of age-specific IFRs for COVID-19. Based on our findings, we are able to assess and contextualize the severity of COVID-19 and examine how age-specific prevalence affects population IFR and the total incidence of fatalities.

Methodology

To perform the present meta-analysis, we collected published papers and preprints on the seroprevalence and/or infection fatality rate of COVID-19 that were publicly disseminated prior to 17 September 2020. As described in Supplementary Appendix B, we systematically performed online searches in MedRxiv, Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, and we identified other studies listed in reports by government institutions such as the U.K. Parliament Office.[6] Data was extracted from studies by three authors and verified prior to inclusion.

We restricted our meta-analysis to studies of advanced economies, based on current membership in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in light of the distinct challenges of health care provision and reporting of fatalities in developing economies.[7] We also excluded studies aimed at measuring prevalence in specific groups such as health care workers.

Our meta-analysis encompasses two distinct approaches for assessing the prevalence of COVID-19: (1) seroprevalence studies that test for antibodies produced in response to the virus, and (2) comprehensive tracing programs using extensive live-virus testing of everyone who has had contact with a potentially infected individual. Seroprevalence estimates are associated with uncertainty related to the sensitivity and specificity of the test method and the extent to which the sampling frame provides an accurate representation of prevalence in the general population; see Supplementary Appendix C. Prevalence measures from comprehensive tracing programs are associated with uncertainty about the extent of inclusion of infected individuals, especially those who are asymptomatic.

Sampling frame

To assess prevalence in the general population, a study should be specifically designed to utilize a random sample using standard survey procedures such as stratification and weighting by demographic characteristics. Other sampling frames may be useful for specific purposes such as sentinel surveillance but not well-suited for assessing prevalence due to substantial risk of systemic bias. Consequently, our meta-analysis excludes the following types of studies:

  • Blood donor studies. Only a small fraction of blood donors are ages 60 and above—a fundamental limitation in assessing COVID-19 prevalence and IFRs for older age groups—and the social behavior of blood donors may be systematically different from their peers.[8, 9] These concerns can be directly investigated by comparing alternative seroprevalence surveys of the same geographical location. As of early June, Public Health England (PHE) reported seroprevalence of 8·5% based on specimens from blood donors, whereas the U.K. Office of National Statistics (ONS) reported markedly lower seroprevalence of 5·4% (CI: 4·3-6·5%) based on its monitoring of a representative sample of the English population.[10, 11]

  • Hospitals and Urgent Care Clinics. Estimates of seroprevalence among current medical patients are subject to substantial bias, as evident from a pair of studies conducted in Tokyo, Japan: One study found 41 positive cases among 1071 urgent care clinic patients, whereas the other study found only two confirmed positive results in a random sample of nearly 2000 Tokyo residents (seroprevalence estimates of 3·8% vs. 0·1%).[12, 13]

  • Active Recruitment. Soliciting participants is particularly problematic in contexts of low prevalence, because seroprevalence can be markedly affected by a few individuals who volunteer due to concerns about prior exposure. For example, a Luxembourg study obtained positive antibody results for 35 out of 1,807 participants, but nearly half of those individuals (15 of 35) had previously had a positive live virus test, were residing in a household with someone who had a confirmed positive test, or had direct contact with someone else who had been infected.[14]

Our critical review has also underscored the pitfalls of seroprevalence studies based on “convenience samples” of residual sera collected for other purposes. For example, two studies assessed seroprevalence of Utah residents during spring 2020. The first study analyzed residual sera from two commercial laboratories and obtained a prevalence estimate of 2·2% (CI: 1·2-3·4%), whereas the second study collected specimens from a representative sample and obtained a markedly lower prevalence estimate of 0·96% (CI: 0·4-1·8%).[15, 16] In light of these issues, our meta-analysis includes residual serum studies but we flag such studies as having an elevated risk of bias.

Comprehensive Tracing Programs

Our meta-analysis incorporates data on COVID-19 prevalence and fatalities in countries that have consistently maintained comprehensive tracing programs since the early stages of the pandemic. Such a program was only feasible in places where public health officials could conduct repeated tests of potentially infected individuals and trace those whom they had direct contact. We identify such countries using a threshold of 300 for the ratio of cumulative tests to reported cases as of 30 April 2020, based on comparisons of prevalence estimates and reported cases in Czech Republic, Korea, and Iceland; see Supplementary Appendices D and E.[17] Studies of Iceland and Korea found that estimated prevalence was moderately higher than the number of reported cases, especially for younger age groups; hence we make corresponding adjustments for other countries with comprehensive tracing programs, and we identify these estimates as subject to an elevated risk of bias.[18-20]

Measurement of fatalities

Accurately measuring total deaths is a substantial issue in assessing IFR due to time lags from onset of symptoms to death and from death to official reporting. Symptoms typically develop within 6 days after exposure but may develop as early as 2 days or as late as 14 days.[1, 21] More than 95% of symptomatic COVID patients have positive antibody (IgG) titres within 17-19 days of symptom onset, and those antibodies remain elevated over a sustained period.[22-25] The mean time interval from symptom onset to death is 15 days for ages 18–64 and 12 days for ages 65+, with interquartile ranges of 9–24 days and 7–19 days, respectively, while the mean interval from date of death to the reporting of that person’s death is ~7 days with an IQR of 2–19 days; thus, the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval between symptom onset and reporting of fatalities is about six weeks (41 days).[26]

Figure 1 illustrates these findings in a hypothetical scenario where the pandemic was curtailed two weeks prior to the date of the seroprevalence study. This figure shows the results of a simulation calibrated to reflect the estimated distribution for time lags between symptom onset, death, and inclusion in official fatality reports. The histogram shows the frequency of deaths and reported fatalities associated with the infections that occurred on the last day prior to full containment. Consistent with the confidence intervals noted above, 95% of cumulative fatalities are reported within roughly four weeks of the date of the seroprevalence study.

Figure 1:
Figure 1: Time lags in the incidence and reporting of COVID-19 fatalities
Figure 2:
Figure 2: Study selection (PRISMA flow diagram)

As shown in Table 2, the precise timing of the count of cumulative fatalities is relatively innocuous in locations where the outbreak had been contained for more than a month prior to the date of the seroprevalence study. By contrast, in instances where the outbreak had only recently been contained, the death count continued rising markedly for several more weeks after the midpoint of the seroprevalence study.

View this table:
Table 2: Timing of reported fatalities for selected seroprevalence studies
View this table:
Table 3: Age-specific fatality rates for COVID-19 infections vs. accidental deaths (%)

Therefore, we construct age-specific IFRs using the seroprevalence data in conjunction with cumulative fatalities four weeks after the midpoint date of each study; see Supplementary Appendix F. We have also conducted sensitivity analysis using cumulative fatalities five weeks after the midpoint date, and we flag studies as having an elevated risk of bias if the change in cumulative fatalities between weeks 4 and 5 exceeds 10%.

By contrast, matching prevalence estimates with subsequent fatalities is not feasible if a seroprevalence study was conducted in the midst of an accelerating outbreak. Therefore, our meta-analysis excludes seroprevalence studies for which the change in cumulative fatalities from week 0 to week 4 exceeds 200%.

Metaregression procedure

To analyze IFR by age, we use meta-regression with random effects, using the meta regress procedure in Stata v16.[27, 28] We used a random-effects procedures to allow for residual heterogeneity between studies and across age groups by assuming that these divergences are drawn from a Gaussian distribution. Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s regression and the trim-and-fill method. See Supplementary Appendix G for further details.

Role of the funding source

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Results

After an initial screening of 1145 studies, we reviewed the full texts of 111 studies, of which 50 studies were excluded due to lack of age-specific data on COVID-19 prevalence or fatalities.[11-13, 25, 29-75] Seroprevalence estimates for two locations were excluded because the outbreak was still accelerating during the period when the specimens were being collected and from two other locations for which age-specific seroprevalence was not distinguishable from zero.[15, 76-78] Studies of non-representative samples were excluded as follows: 11 studies of blood donors, 4 studies of patients of hospitals and outpatient clinics, 4 studies with active recruitment of participants, and 5 narrow sample groups such as elementary schools.[10, 13, 14, 76, 79-98] Supplementary Appendix H lists all excluded studies.

Consequently, our metaregression analyzes IFR data from 28 locations, which can be classified into three distinct groups:

  • Representative samples from studies of England, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Geneva (Switzerland), and four U.S. locations (Atlanta, Indiana, New York, and Salt Lake City).[16, 99-109]

  • Convenience samples from studies of Belgium, France, Sweden, and a study of eight U.S. locations (Connecticut, Louisiana, Miami, Minneapolis, Missouri, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle).[15, 110-112]

  • Comprehensive tracing programs for Australia, Iceland, Korea, Lithuania, and New Zealand.[113-117]

The metaregression includes results from the very large REACT-2 seroprevalence study of the English population.[104] Thus, to avoid pitfalls of nested or overlapping samples, two other somewhat smaller studies conducted by U.K. Biobank and the U.K. Office of National Statistics are not included in the metaregression but are instead used in out-of-sample analysis of the metaregression results.[11, 118] Similarly, the metaregression includes a large representative sample from Salt Lake City, and hence a smaller convenience sample of Utah residents is included in the out-of-sample analysis along with two other small-scale studies.[15, 16, 119, 120] Data taken from included studies is shown in Supplementary Appendix I. Supplementary Appendix J assesses the risk of bias for each individual study. As indicated in Supplementary Appendix K, no publication bias was found using Egger’s test (p > 0.10), and the trim-and-fill method produced the same estimate as the metaregression.

We obtain the following meta-regression results: Embedded Image where the standard error for each estimated coefficient is given in parentheses. These estimates are highly significant with t-statistics of -42·9 and 38·5, respectively, and p-values below 0·0001. The residual heterogeneity τ2 = 0·432 (p-value < 0.0001) and I2 = 97·0, confirming that the random effects are essential for capturing unexplained variations across studies and age groups. The adjusted R2 is 94·2%.

As noted above, the validity of this meta-regression rests on the condition that the data are consistent with a Gaussian distribution. The validity of that assumption is evident in Figure 3: Nearly all of the observations fall within the 95% prediction interval of the metaregression, and the remainder are moderate outliers.

Figure 3:
Figure 3: The log-linear relationship between IFR and age

Figure 4 depicts the exponential relationship between age and the level of IFR in percent, and Figure 5 shows the corresponding forest plot. Evidently, the SARS-CoV-2 virus poses a substantial mortality risk for middle-aged adults and even higher risks for elderly people: The IFR is very low for children and young adults but rises to 0·4% at age 55, 1·3% at age 65, 4·2% at age 75, 14% at age 85, and exceeds 25% for ages 90 and above. These metaregression predictions are well aligned with the out-of-sample IFRs; see Supplementary Appendix L.

Figure 4:
Figure 4: Benchmark analysis of the link between age and IFR
Figure 5:
Figure 5:
Figure 5:
Figure 5: Forest plot of metaregression data

As shown in Figure 6, the metaregression explains nearly 90% of the geographical variation in population IFR, which ranges from ~0·5% in Salt Lake City and Geneva to 1·5% in Australia and England and 2·7% in Italy. The metaregression explains this variation in terms of differences in the age structure of the population and age-specific prevalence of COVID-19.

Figure 6:
Figure 6: Variations in population IFR across geographical locations

Discussion

Our meta-analysis indicates that COVID-19 poses a low risk for children and younger adults but is hazardous for middle-aged adults and extremely dangerous for older adults. Table 4 contextualize these risks by comparing the age-specific IFRs from our meta-regression analysis to the annualized risks of fatal automobile accidents or other unintentional injuries in England and in the United States.[121, 122] For example, an English person aged 55–64 years who gets infected with SARS-CoV-2 faces a fatality risk that is more than 200 times higher than the annual risk of dying in a fatal car accident.

This analysis also confirms that COVID-19 is far more deadly than seasonal flu. For example, during the influenza season of winter 2018–19 the U.S. population had ~63 million infections and 34 thousand fatalities, with a population IFR of 0·05% an order of magnitude lower than COVID-19; see Supplementary Appendix M.

These results indicate that the population IFR should not be interpreted as a fixed parameter of COVID-19 but as an outcome that reflects public health measures to limit the incidence of infections among vulnerable age groups. To illustrate these considerations, we have constructed three scenarios for the U.S. trajectory of COVID-19 infections and fatalities; see Supplementary Appendix N. Each scenario assumes that U.S. prevalence rises to a plateau of around 20% but with different patterns of age-specific prevalence. In particular, if prevalence becomes uniform across age groups, this analysis projects that total U.S. fatalities would exceed 500 thousand and that population IFR would converge to around 0·8%. By contrast, a scenario with relatively low incidence of new infections among vulnerable age groups would be associated with less than half as many deaths and a much lower population IFR of ~0·3%.

Our critical review underscores the substantial benefits of assessing prevalence using large-scale studies of representative samples of the general population (rather than convenience samples of blood donors or medical patients). Conducting such studies on an ongoing basis will enable public health officials to monitor changes in prevalence among vulnerable age groups and gauge the efficacy of public policy measures. Moreover, such studies will enable researchers to assess the extent to which antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 may gradually diminish over time as well as the extent to which advances in treatment facilitate the reduction of age-specific IFRs.

As shown in Supplementary Appendix O, our metaregression results are broadly consistent with the pathbreaking study of Verity et al. (2020), which was completed at a very early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic and characterized an exponential pattern of age-specific IFRs that was very low for children and much higher for older adults.[123] Our results are also well-aligned with a more recent meta-analysis of population IFR; indeed, our age-specific analysis explains a very high proportion of the dispersion in population IFRs highlighted by that study.[5] In contrast, our findings are markedly different from those of an earlier review of population IFR, mostly due to differences in selection criteria.[124] Finally, the exponential pattern of our age-specific IFR estimates is qualititatively similar to that of age-specific CFRs but the magnitudes are systematically different, as shown in Supplementary Appendix P.

This meta-analysis has focused on the role of age in determining the IFR of COVID-19 but has not incorporated other factors that may have significant effects on IFR. For example, a recent U.K. study found that mortality outcomes are strongly linked to specific comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity but did not resolve the question of whether those links reflect differences in prevalence or causal effects on IFR.[125] See Supplementary Appendix Q for additional evidence. Likewise, we have not considered the extent to which IFRs may vary with other demographic factors such as race and ethnicity.[29, 59] Further research on these issues is clearly warranted.

It should also be noted that our analysis has focused exclusively on the incidence of fatalities but has not captured the full spectrum of adverse health consequences of COVID-19, some of which may be severe and persistent. Further research is needed to assess age-stratified rates of hospitalization as well as longer-term sequelae attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infections.

In summary, our meta-analysis demonstrates that COVID-19 is not just dangerous for the elderly and infirm but also for healthy middle-aged adults. The metaregression explains nearly 90% of the geographical variation in population IFR, indicating that the population IFR is intrinsically linked to the age-specific pattern of infections. Consequently, public health measures to protect vulnerable age groups could substantially reduce the incidence of mortality.

Data Availability

This study is a meta-analysis using information from published articles, preprints, and government reports; all sources are listed in the bibliography with active URLs. The data and Stata code used in performing the meta-regression analysis are provided as Supplementary Materials.

Declaration of Interests

The authors have no financial interests nor any other conflicts of interest related to this study.

No funding was received for conducting this study. This study was preprinted at: https://www.medrxiv.ors/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v3.

Footnotes

  • Updated meta-analysis to include recent seroprevalence studies disseminated as of September 17. Computes test-adjusted prevalence estimates and confidence intervals for studies that only reported raw prevalence. Supplemental materials updated.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Khalili M, Karamouzian M, Nasiri N, Javadi S, Mirzazadeh A, Sharifi H. Epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol Infect. 2020;148:e130. doi:10.1017/S0950268820001430
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    Oran DP, Topol EJ. Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Narrative Review. Ann Intern Med. 2020. doi:10.7326/M20-3012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    New York Department of Health. COVID-19 Tracker - Fatalities by Age Group. 2020.
  4. 4.↵
    New York City Department of Health. COVID-19 Data. 2020.
  5. 5.↵
    Meyerowitz-Katz G, Merone L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates. 2020.
  6. 6.↵
    United Kingdom Parliament Office. Antibody Tests for COVID-19. 2020.
  7. 7.↵
    Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Member Countries. 2020.
  8. 8.↵
    Brown TS, Walensky RP. Serosurveillance and the COVID-19 Epidemic in the US: Undetected, Uncertain, and Out of Control. JAMA. 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.14017
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    Lattimore S, Wickenden C, Brailsford SR. Blood donors in England and North Wales: demography and patterns of donation. Transfusion. 2015;55(1):91–9. doi:10.1111/trf.12835
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Public Health England. Sero-Surveillance of COVID-19: Week 22. 2020.
  11. 11.↵
    United Kingdom Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection survey: characteristics of people testing positive for COVID-19 in England, August 2020. 2020.
  12. 12.↵
    Japan Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. Updates on COVID-19 in Japan. 2020.
  13. 13.↵
    Takita M, Matsumura T, Yamamoto K, et al. Geographical Profiles of COVID-19 Outbreak in Tokyo: An Analysis of the Primary Care Clinic-Based Point-of-Care Antibody Testing. J Prim Care Community Health. 2020;11:2150132720942695. doi:10.1177/2150132720942695
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    Snoeck CJ, Vaillant M, Abdelrahman T, et al. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Luxembourgish population: the CON-VINCE study. 2020.
  15. 15.↵
    Havers FP, Reed C, Lim T, et al. Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in 10 Sites in the United States, March 23-May 12, 2020. JAMA Intern Med. 2020. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4130
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    University of Utah Health. Utah HERO project announces phase one findings. 2020.
  17. 17.↵
    Our World in Data. Coronavirus (COVID-19) testing: tests per confirmed case. 2020. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing#tests-per-confirmed-case. Accessed August 18.
  18. 18.↵
    Gudbjartsson DF, Helgason A, Jonsson H, et al. Spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the Icelandic Population. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(24):2302–15. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2006100
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    Korea Center for Disease Control. Updates on COVID-19 in Korea as of July 9. 2020.
  20. 20.↵
    Song SK, Lee DH, Nam JH, et al. IgG Seroprevalence of COVID-19 among Individuals without a History of the Coronavirus Disease Infection in Daegu, Korea. Journal of Korean medical science. 2020;35(29):e269–e. doi:10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e269
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    Byrne AW, McEvoy D, Collins AB, et al. Inferred duration of infectious period of SARS-CoV-2: rapid scoping review and analysis of available evidence for asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 cases. BMJ Open. 2020;10(8):e039856–e. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039856
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Long QX, Liu BZ, Deng HJ, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020;26(6):845–8. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0897-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    Sethuraman N, Jeremiah SS, Ryo A. Interpreting Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA. 2020;323(22):2249–51. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.8259
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.
    Choe PG, Kang CK, Suh HJ, et al. Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 at 8 Weeks Postinfection in Asymptomatic Patients. Emerging Infectious Disease journal. 2020;26(10). doi:10.3201/eid2610.202211
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    Ripperger TJ, Uhrlaub JL, Watanabe M, et al. Detection, prevalence, and duration of humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 under conditions of limited population exposure. medRxiv. 2020:2020.08.14.20174490. doi:10.1101/2020.08.14.20174490
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios. 2020.
  27. 27.↵
    Harbord RM, Higgins JPT. Meta-regression in Stata. Stata Journal. 2008;8(4):493–519.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137–59. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    Chamie G, Marquez C, Crawford E, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Community Transmission During Shelter-in-Place in San Francisco. 2020.
  30. 30.
    Czech Ministry of Health. Collective Immunity Study SARS-CoV-2: Czech Prevalence. 2020.
  31. 31.
    Denmark State Blood Institute. Notat: Nye foreløbige resultater fra den repræsentative seroprævalensundersøgelse af COVID-19. 2020.
  32. 32.
    Dimeglio C, Loubes J-M, Miedougé M, Herin F, Soulat J-M, Izopet J. The real seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in France and its consequences for virus dynamics. Research Square; 2020.
  33. 33.
    Feehan AK, Fort D, Garcia-Diaz J, et al. Point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and infection fatality rate in Orleans and Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, May 9-15, 2020. 2020.
  34. 34.
    Jersey Health & Community Services. Prevalence of Antibodies – Community Survey Round 2. 2020.
  35. 35.
    Lavezzo E, Franchin E, Ciavarella C, et al. Suppression of COVID-19 outbreak in the municipality of Vo, Italy. 2020.
  36. 36.
    Mahajan S, Srinivasan R, Redlich CA, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-Specific IgG Antibodies Among Adults Living in Connecticut Between March 1 and June 1, 2020: Post-Infection Prevalence (PIP) Study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.08.04.20168203. doi:10.1101/2020.08.04.20168203
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.
    McLaughlin CC, Doll MK, Morrison KT, et al. High Community SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Seroprevalence in a Ski Resort Community, Blaine County, Idaho, US. Preliminary Results. medRxiv. 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.07.19.20157198
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.
    Nawa N, Kuramochi J, Sonoda S, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies in Utsunomiya City, Greater Tokyo, after first pandemic in 2020 (U-CORONA): a household- and population-based study. 2020.
  39. 39.
    Nishiura H, Kobayashi T, Yang Y, et al. The Rate of Underascertainment of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Infection: Estimation Using Japanese Passengers Data on Evacuation Flights. J Clin Med. 2020;9(2). doi:10.3390/jcm9020419
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.
    Norrbotten Region. Forekomst av antikroppar mot covid-19 - Norrbottens befolkning maj 2020. 2020.
  41. 41.
    Norway Public Health Institute. Truleg berre ein liten andel av befolkninga som har vore smitta av koronavirus. 2020.
  42. 42.
    Oklahoma State Department of Health. Weekly Epidemiology and Surveillance Report. 2020.
  43. 43.
    Oregon State University. TRACE results suggest 17% of Hermiston community infected with SARS-CoV-2. 2020.
  44. 44.
    Petersen MS, Strom M, Christiansen DH, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Antibodies, Faroe Islands. emerging infectious diseases. 2020;26(11). doi:10.3201/EID2611.202736
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.
    Rhode Island Department of Health. COVID-19 serology testing brief. 2020.
  46. 46.
    Riverside County Joint Information Center. Antibody study shows coronavirus spread wider in Riverside County. 2020.
  47. 47.
    Saltzman J. Nearly a third of 200 blood samples taken in Chelsea show exposure to coronavirus. Boston Globe. 2020 4/17/2020.
  48. 48.
    San Miguel County Department of Health & Environment. IgG Antibody Tests: Statistics and Demographics. 2020.
  49. 49.
    Skowronski DM, Sekirov I, Sabaiduc S, et al. Low SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence based on anonymized residual sero-survey before and after first wave measures in British Columbia, Canada, March-May 2020. 2020.
  50. 50.
    Slovenia Government Communication Office. First study carried out on herd immunity of the population in the whole territory of Slovenia. 2020.
  51. 51.
    Stadlbauer D, Tan J, Jiang K, et al. Seroconversion of a city: Longitudinal monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 seoprevalence in New York City. medRxiv. 2020:2020.06.28.20142190. doi:10.1101/2020.06.28.20142190
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.
    Stockholm Region. Lägesrapport om arbetet med det nya coronaviruset. 2020.
  53. 53.
    Streeck H, Schulte B, Kuemmerer B, et al. Infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a German community with a super-spreading event. 2020.
  54. 54.
    University of Miami. SPARK-C: understanding the burden of COVID-19 in Miami-Dade County through rapid serological testing of a representative random sample. 2020.
  55. 55.
    Washoe County Health District. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Specific Antibodies Among Adults in Washoe County, Nevada on June 9-10, 2020. 2020.
  56. 56.
    Weis S, Scherag A, Baier M, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in an entirely PCR-sampled and quarantined community after a COVID-19 outbreak - the CoNAN study. 2020.
  57. 57.
    Wells PM, Doores KM, Couvreur S, et al. Estimates of the rate of infection and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease in a population sample from SE England. 2020.
  58. 58.
    Sweden Public Health Authority. The Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 in Stockholm - Technical Report. 2020.
  59. 59.↵
    Feehan AK, Fort D, Garcia-Diaz J, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and Infection Fatality Ratio, Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, Louisiana, USA, May 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020; 26(11). doi:10.3201/eid2611.203029
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.
    Giustizia News. Coronavirus, l’incubo senza fine di Ariano Irpino: 60 positivi al tampone dopo i test sierologici. May 28.
  61. 61.
    Austria Statistik. COVID-19 prevalence study: a maximum of 0.15% of the population in Austria infected with SARS-CoV-2. 2020.
  62. 62.
    Saltzman J. Study: 1 out of 10 residents in 4 neighborhoods unwittingly had coronavirus. Boston Globe. 2020 May 15.
  63. 63.
    Micolitti A. Caldari Ortona: 12% cittadini sottoposti a test sierologici positivi con anticorpi al Covid 19. Rete8. 2020 June 3.
  64. 64.
    Finland National Institute for Health and Welfare. Weekly report of THL serological population study of the coronavirus epidemic. 2020.
  65. 65.
    Bogogiannidou Z, Vontas A, Dadouli K, et al. Repeated leftover serosurvey of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, Greece, March and April 2020. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(31):2001369. doi:doi:https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.31.2001369
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.
    Times of Israel Staff. Coronavirus: Israël est encore loin de l’immunité de groupe. Times of Israel. 2020 July 23.
  67. 67.
    Aziz NA, Corman VM, Echterhoff AKC, et al. Seroprevalence and correlates of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies: Results from a population-based study in Bonn, Germany. medRxiv. 2020:2020.08.24.20181206. doi:10.1101/2020.08.24.20181206
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.
    CBC News. Serology study gives officials first look at spread of COVID-19 through Alberta’s population. 2020 July 30.
  69. 69.
    Feehan AK, Velasco C, Fort D, et al. Racial and workplace disparities in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 1S-B1, 2020. medRxiv. 2020:2020.08.26.20180968. doi:10.1101/2020.0S.26.201S096S
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.
    Hicks S, Pohl K, Neeman T, et al. A dual antigen ELISA allows the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in a low transmission setting. medRxiv. 2020:2020.09.09.20191031. doi:10.1101/2020.09.09.201910B1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.
    Lundkvist Â, Hanson S, Olsen B. Pronounced difference in Covid-19 antibody prevalence indicates cluster transmission in Stockholm, Sweden. Infection Ecology & Epidemiology. 2020;10(1):1S06S0S. doi:10.10S0/2000S6S6.2020.1S06S0S
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. 72.
    University of Louisville School of Medicine. Phase II results of Co-Immunity Project show higher-than-expected rates of exposure to novel coronavirus in Jefferson County. 2020.
  73. 73.
    van den Broek-Altenburg E, Atherly A, Diehl S, et al. Risk Factors for COVID-19: Community Exposure and Mask-Wearing. 2020. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3676570
  74. 74.
    Knabl L, Mitra T, Kimpel J, et al. High SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Children and Adults in the Austrian Ski Resort Ischgl. medRxiv. 2020:2020.08.20.20178533. doi:10.1101/2020.0S.20.2017SSBB
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. 75.↵
    Naranbhai V, Chang CC, Beltran WFG, et al. High seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Chelsea, Massachusetts. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020. doi:10.109B/infdis/jiaaS79
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. 76.↵
    Reifer J, Hayum N, Heszkel B, Klagsbald I, Streva VA. SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody responses in New York City. diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease. 2020. doi:10.1016/J.DIAGMICROBIO.2020.115128
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.
    Merkely B, Szabo AJ, Kosztin A, et al. Novel coronavirus epidemic in the Hungarian population, a cross-sectional nationwide survey to support the exit policy in Hungary. Geroscience. 2020;42(4):1063–74. doi:10.1007/s11357-020-00226-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    Sutton M, Cieslak P, Linder M. Seroprevalence Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Convenience Sample — Oregon, May 11-June 15, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 69: 1100–1. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6932a4
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Armann JP, Unrath M, Kirsten C, Lueck C, Dalpke A, Berner R. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in adolescent students and their teachers in Saxony, Germany (SchoolCoviDD19): very low seropraevalence and transmission rates. 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.07.16.20155143
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.
    Bendavid E, Mulaney B, Sood N, et al. COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California. 2020.
  81. 81.
    Bryan A, Pepper G, Wener MH, et al. Performance Characteristics of the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Assay and Seroprevalence in Boise, Idaho. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(8). doi:10.1128/JCM.00941-20
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. 82.
    Erikstrup C, Hother CE, Pedersen OBV, et al. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate by real-time antibody screening of blood donors. clinical infectious diseases. 2020. doi:10.1093/CID/CIAA849
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. 83.
    Fiore J, Centra M, de Carlo A, et al. Far away from herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2: results from a survey in healthy blood donors in southeastern Italy. 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.06.17.20133678
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.
    Fischer B, Knabbe C, Vollmer T. SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in blood donors located in three different federal states, Germany, March to June 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(28). doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.28.2001285
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. 85.
    Fontanet A, Tondeur L, Madec Y, et al. Cluster of COVID-19 in northern France: A retrospective closed cohort study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.18.20071134. doi:10.1101/2020.04.18.20071134
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.
    Kraehling V, Kern M, Halwe S, et al. Epidemiological study to detect active SARS-CoV-2 infections and seropositive persons in a selected cohort of employees in the Frankfurt am Main metropolitan area. 2020.
  87. 87.
    Nesbitt DJ, Jin D, Hogan JW, et al. Low Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Rhode Island Blood Donors Determined using Multiple Serological Assay Formats. 2020.
  88. 88.
    Ng D, Goldgof G, Shy B, et al. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and neutralizing activity in donor and patient blood from the San Francisco Bay Area. medRxiv. 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.05.19.20107482
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. 89.
    Percivalle E, Cambie G, Cassaniti I, et al. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralising antibodies in blood donors from the Lodi Red Zone in Lombardy, Italy, as at 06 April 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(24). doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.24.2001031
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  90. 90.
    Slot E, Hogema BM, Reusken CBEM, et al. Herd immunity is not a realistic exit strategy during a COVID-19 outbreak. 2020. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-25862/v1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. 91.
    Thompson CP, Grayson N, Paton R, et al. Detection of neutralising antibodies to SARS coronavirus 2 to determine population exposure in Scottish blood donors between March and May 2020. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.13.20060467. doi:10.1101/2020.04.13.20060467
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. 92.
    Valenti L, Bergna A, Pelusi S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence trends in healthy blood donors during the COVID-19 Milan outbreak. 2020.
  93. 93.
    Doi A, Iwata K, Kuroda H, et al. Estimation of seroprevalence of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) using preserved serum at an outpatient setting in Kobe, Japan: A cross-sectional study. 2020.
  94. 94.
    Emmenegger M, Cecco ED, Lamparter D, et al. Population-wide evolution of SARS-CoV-2 immunity tracked by a ternary immunoassay. 2020.
  95. 95.
    Canadian Blood Services. COVID-19 seroprevalence report-August 19, 2020. 2020.
  96. 96.
    Poletti P, Tirani M, Cereda D, et al. Age-specific SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality ratio and associated risk factors, Italy, February to April 2020. Euro surveillance: bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin. 2020;25(31):2001383. doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.31.2001383
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. 97.
    Rigatti SJ, Stout R. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Prevalence and Association with Routine Laboratory Values in a Life Insurance Applicant Population. medRxiv. 2020:2020.09.09.20191296. doi:10.1101/2020.09.09.20191296
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. 98.↵
    Toenshoff B, Muller B, Elling R, et al. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children and Their Parents in Southwest Germany. 2020. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3668418
  99. 99.↵
    Biggs HM. Estimated Community Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies — Two Georgia Counties, April 28-May 3, 2020. morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2020;69(29):965–70. doi:10.15585/MMWR.MM6929E2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  100. 100.
    Italy National Institute of Statistics. Primi risultati dell’indagine di sieroprevalenza sul SARS-CoV-2. 2020.
  101. 101.
    Pastor-Barriuso R, Perez-Gomez B, Hernan MA, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality risk in a nationwide seroepidemiological study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.08.06.20169722. doi:10.1101/2020.08.06.20169722
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. 102.
    Perez-Saez J, Lauer SA, Kaiser L, et al. Serology-informed estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality risk in Geneva, Switzerland. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30584-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. 103.
    Rosenberg ES, Tesoriero JM, Rosenthal EM, et al. Cumulative incidence and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in New York. annals of epidemiology. 2020. doi:10.1016/J.ANNEPIDEM.2020.06.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  104. 104.↵
    Ward H, Atchison CJ, Whitaker M, et al. Antibody prevalence for SARS-CoV-2 in England following first peak of the pandemic: REACT2 study in 100,000 adults. medRxiv. 2020:2020.08.12.20173690. doi:10.1101/2020.08.12.20173690
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.
    Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. Children and COVID-19. 2020.
  106. 106.
    Portugal National Institute of Health. Relatório de Apresentação dos Resultados Preliminares do Primeiro Inquérito Serológico Nacional COVID-19. 2020.
  107. 107.
    Menachemi N, Yiannoutsos CT, Dixon BE, et al. Population Point Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Based on a Statewide Random Sample — Indiana, April 25–29, 2020. morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2020;69(29):960–4. doi:10.15585/MMWR.MM6929E1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. 108.
    Ireland Health Service Executive. Preliminary report of the results of the Study to Investigate COVID-19 Infection in People Living in Ireland (SCOPI): a national seroprevalence study, June-July 2020. 2020.
  109. 109.↵
    Waterfield T, Watson C, Moore R, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children - A prospective multicentre cohort study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.08.31.20183095. doi:10.1101/2020.08.31.20183095
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. 110.↵
    Molenberghs G, Faes C, Aerts J, et al. Belgian Covid-19 Mortality, Excess Deaths, Number of Deaths per Million, and Infection Fatality Rates (8 March - 9 May 2020). 2020.
  111. 111.
    France Public Health. COVID-19: point épidémiologique du 9 juillet 2020. 2020.
  112. 112.↵
    Sweden Public Health Authority. Seroprevalence of Antibodies following COVID-19 Infection in Blood Samples from Outpatient Care, Interim report 1, updated on June 18 using data thru week 21 - Påvisning av antikroppar efter genomgången covid-19 i blodprov från öppenvården, delrapport 1 - uppdaterad 2020-06-18 med data för prover insamlade vecka 21. 2020.
  113. 113.↵
    Australia Department of Health. Coronavirus (COVID-19) current situation and case numbers. 2020.
  114. 114.
    Iceland Directorate of Health. COVID-19 in Iceland - Statistics 28 Feb to 14 June 2020. 2020.
  115. 115.
    Korea Center for Disease Control. Weekly Report on the COVID-19 Situation in the Republic of Korea. 2020.
  116. 116.
    Lithuania Central Registry. Koronaviruso (COVID-19) Lietuvoje statistika. 2020.
  117. 117.↵
    New Zealand Ministry of Health. COVID-19 Current Cases. 2020.
  118. 118.↵
    United Kingdom BioBank. UK Biobank SARS-CoV-2 Serology Study Weekly Report - 21 July 2020. 2020.
  119. 119.↵
    Mizumoto K, Kagaya K, Zarebski A, Chowell G. Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020. eurosurveillance. 2020;25(10). doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    Pagani G, Conti F, Giacomelli A, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG significantly varies with age: results from a mass population screening (SARS-2-SCREEN-CdA). 2020.
  121. 121.↵
    U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. Underlying Cause of Death, 1999-2018. 2020.
  122. 122.↵
    United Kingdom Office of National Statistics. Mortality statistics - underlying cause, sex and age. 2020.
  123. 123.↵
    Verity R, Okell LC, Dorigatti I, et al. Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis. lancet infectious diseases. 2020;20(6):669–77. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30243-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. 124.↵
    Ioannidis J. The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. 2020.
  125. 125.↵
    Williamson EJ, Walker AJ, Bhaskaran K, et al. Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY. Nature. 2020. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2521-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted September 26, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications
Andrew T. Levin, William P. Hanage, Nana Owusu-Boaitey, Kensington B. Cochran, Seamus P. Walsh, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz
medRxiv 2020.07.23.20160895; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area