SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rates in India: systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based estimation

Terminology and Definitions

Below we provide the definitions, with formulas as needed, of the various terms used throughout this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Seroprevalence survey (i.e., serosurvey) in the context of SARS-CoV-2 are large-scale studies aimed at estimating the true prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., the cumulative percent infected over a period of time) within the target population utilizing serology testing for IgG or IgM antibody presence (18) scaled to the level of a geographic location (e.g., nationwide, statewide, citywide, or districtwide), a community, or a smaller group. Study designs of serosurveys commonly involve population-based sampling methods (e.g., multi-stage cluster sampling, probability proportionate to size, etc.) applied to obtain a randomly selected, representative sample.

Case Underreporting Factor (URF (C)) is defined as the estimated total cumulative infections divided by the reported (i.e., observed) cumulative cases at the indicated date. The numerator (estimated total cumulative infections) is estimated by the population of the target geographic region from which samples were selected, multiplied by the seroprevalence, as sourced from serosurveys. The population estimate is age-adjusted according to the age cut-off for the underlying study by multiplying the total population estimate of the study area by the proportion of the population in the age range included in the study sample.

Excess Deaths is defined as the absolute difference between the observed all-cause mortality in a specific time period and the expected all-cause mortality in the same period. When calculating excess deaths, the expected all-cause mortality is commonly projected using prior years of data, an average of prior years, or an alternative benchmark, as it largely depends on the availability and continuity of all-cause mortality data within the location of study. Death Underreporting Factor (URF (D)) is defined as the estimated total cumulative deaths divided by the reported (i.e., observed) cumulative deaths at the indicated date, as collected 14 days after the date indicated. The numerator of the URF (D) (i.e., estimated total cumulative deaths) is the location and time period-specific excess deaths estimate (available at the time of this report), as sourced from media reports and studies on excess deaths. Using all-cause-mortality to calculate excess deaths over a long period has the limitation that the numerator often is not specific to COVID-19 disease. Some model-based studies have alternative ways of estimating this fraction using assumed values of COVID-19 fatality rates.

Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is defined as the reported (i.e., observed) cumulative deaths divided by the reported/observed cumulative cases. Reported cumulative deaths are routinely collected 14 days after the date indicated to allow for fatality delay between symptom onset and death. Whereas reported cumulative cases are collected on the date indicated, as a conservative approach to capturing the cumulative infections up to the date indicated. Further details on the intuition behind the assumption of a 14-day fatality lag can be found in Supplementary Appendix F. Infection Fatality Rate₁ (IFR₁) is defined as the reported (i.e., observed) cumulative deaths (collected 14 days after the indicated date) divided by the estimated total cumulative infections. In other words, IFR₁ is an estimate of the true fatality rate for which the uncertainty in the denominator is adjusted but not the uncertainty in the numerator, namely, death undercounting is not accounted for. In our meta-analysis, for studies without precalculated IFR₁, the denominator (estimated total cumulative infections) is computed as the seroprevalence multiplied by the population estimate of the study location. Again, the population estimate is age-adjusted, according to the age inclusion criterion of the study design, by multiplying the population number by the percent of the population in the specified age range.

Infection Fatality Rate₂ (IFR₂) is defined as the estimated total cumulative deaths (14 days after the indicated date) divided by the estimated total cumulative infections. In other words, IFR₂ is an estimate of the true fatality rate for which both the uncertainty in the denominator and the uncertainty in the numerator (i.e., death undercounting) are adjusted. For studies without precalculated IFR₂, the denominator (estimated total cumulative infections) is the same as the denominator in IFR₁. The numerator (estimated total cumulative infections) is computed as the reported (i.e., observed) cumulative deaths (collected 14 days after the indicated date) multiplied by the death underreporting factor, as either model-derived or sourced directly from media reports and studies on excess deaths.

Identification of Studies for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and guidelines (19) (see Supplementary Appendix A for the completed PRISMA checklist). Two reviewers developed the search strategy with the expertise and guidance of information specialists from the University of Michigan Taubman Health Sciences Library. On July 3, 2020, we performed the search for relevant articles publicly disseminated from January 1, 2020 onwards and conducted in any language within the databases PubMed, Embase, World Health Organization’s database Global Index Medicus, as well as BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and SSRN through isearch, an interface that houses SARS-CoV-2 related reports curated by the National Institute of Health (a complete search strategy, including search terms, Boolean operators, and applied filters, for each database is published in Supplementary Appendix B). Up until August 15, we verified that no relevant studies were missed by manually combing through studies referenced in media reports, government press releases, and any additional preprints or reports published after July 3 and through August 15, 2021.

For the narrative review, eligible studies included a nationwide, regional (e.g., state, union territory, city, district, or slum designated area, etc.), or age/sex-specific measure of seroprevalence or infection fatality rate (IFR) for India or adjacent countries of Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Consistent with a systematic review that examines international infection fatality rates of SARS-CoV-2 among OECD countries (i.e. non-developing countries) (15), studies were excluded in the full-text screening (a) if the studies examined narrower subpopulations of the location of interest (e.g., healthcare workers, HIV positive adults, or industrial workers, etc.), (b) if the studies recruited participants from certain facilities (e.g., blood donors, dialysis centers), (c) if the studies considered individuals at hospitals, urgent care centers, intensive care units (ICUs), or tertiary care centers, (d) if the studies performed active recruitment of subjects (i.e. participants volunteered), and (e) if the studies limited their cohort to asymptomatic or symptomatic individuals. These criteria are used to identify studies both with representative samples of the general population of interest and with measurements of the outcomes that reflect seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 regardless of virus manifestation (or irrespective of clinical presentation and presence of symptoms).

For the meta-analysis of infection fatality rates (IFRs), studies were included if (in addition to meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion to the qualitative review) (a) 95% confidence interval was available for either the seroprevalence and/or the precalculated IFR, when available, and (b) data on COVID-19 confirmed fatalities was available for the study location from covid19india.org (20) at the time of this review. Additionally, for studies that do not provide a precalculated IFR₂ (i.e., do not provide an IFR estimate adjusted for death underreporting), a study was excluded from IFR₂ examination if no excess deaths or death underreporting factors were available (at the time of this review) for the location of interest (e.g., district or city) in media reports or excess deaths focused publications. Namely, this report utilizes excess deaths from three sources for the nationwide meta-analysis of IFR₂ (21) (22) (23) and the following sources for the regional and state-level IFR₂ analysis: for cities and districts Ahmedabad (22), Bangalore Rural District (22), Chennai (22) (24), Indore (22), Mumbai (25) (22) (26), Ujjain (22), and for states Delhi (27) (13) (22), Karnataka (28) (29), Tamil Nadu (22) (28). Table A below summarizes the sources used in nationwide excess deaths studies (21) (22) (30) (23), as well as in the Data Development Lab (31), an interactive open source data platform recently made available for India.

Two-Step Screening and Data Abstraction

Citation titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers for verifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For articles not satisfying the exclusion criterion, the full text was accessed, and the two screeners separately reviewed the methods and results sections of these studies for final inclusion into this systematic review and meta-analysis. The two reviewers subsequently extracted data from the included articles on the following items: (a) study design, location, and time period, as well as inclusion criteria, (b) sample size denoting the number of participants in the study, (c) descriptive statistics of the proportion of the study cohort male versus female and the mean age of the study cohort, (d) estimate of infection fatality ratio (IFR) or seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2 and corresponding 95% confidence intervals, when available, (e) any statistical sensitivity tests performed.

Statistical Meta-analysis

A detailed description of the meta-analysis framework is presented in Supplementary Appendix F. To perform the meta-analyses presented herein, the R package meta (33) was utilized and the R package metafor (34) was employed to perform the included sensitivity analyses.

In preparation for the meta-analysis, we extract the IFR or seroprevalence estimates, as well as the provided 95% CI, from each study corresponding to the study’s intended overall population. For seroprevalence studies without precalculated IFR₁, we collect data on (a) COVID-19 confirmed fatalities from covid19india.org (20) 14 days after the end date of the study period (as previously reasoned), (b) 2019 projected population estimates from the World Bank for India (35), 2019 projected population estimates from the 2011 census for states (36), and 2011 census population estimates for districts and cities (limited by available projections) (36), (c) 2011 census information on age demographics for the study location (37), and (d) underreporting factors, as derived or directly reported from media reports and studies on excess deaths for the nation, state, district, or city were collected nearest to the end date of when the study was conducted. With these collected data items, for studies without a precalculated fatality rate, we compute IFR₁ and IFR₂ following the definitions provided in the Terminology and Definitions section above. We note that for smaller regional denominations (e.g., cities or districts) for which data on excess deaths were unavailable, we use the statewide death underreporting factor (if available) in computing IFR₂.

For the meta-analysis itself, we estimate three versions of SARS-CoV-2 pooled IFRs– namely (a) IFR₁, (b) IFR₂ with lower limit of the reported estimates of URF (D), and (c) IFR₂ with higher limit of the reported estimates of URF (D)– for each sub-analysis. First, using a random effects model with inverse variance method and DerSimonian-Laird (DL) estimation, we estimate the nationwide SARS-CoV-2 pooled IFRs, as well as 95% confidence intervals, for India across all available national IFR datapoints (both precalculated and computed herein) included in this review. Next, a regional analysis of IFRs is performed considering India partitioned into the following regions: North, Northeast, East, South, West, and Central. Regions with at least one available eligible study are examined. To compute the regional SARS-CoV-2 pooled IFRs, we first pool the IFR estimates from statewide, citywide, and districtwide studies associated with each state, using the same random effects estimation approach. Then, the regional SARS-CoV-2 pooled IFRs are approximated with the statewide pooled IFR estimates, using the analogous random effects model with the inverse variance approach and DL estimator.

In both the nationwide and regional analyses, heterogeneity is assessed using the I² statistic, where a I² of 50% to 90% denotes substantial heterogeneity and I² ≥ 75% (and up to 100%) indicates considerable heterogeneity among the included studies, as recommended by Cochrane guidelines (38). For the regional analysis, we interpret the I² with caution as we do expect there to be variation in the true effect size among the included studies, as these studies cover varying states and IFRs have been found to vary by state (13).

To assess publication bias, we produce a funnel plot to examine the distribution of p-values and 95% confidence intervals, as well as perform the Egger’s and Begg’s tests to formally test for funnel plot asymmetry. To assess the risk of bias in the seroprevalence estimates across the included studies, we utilized the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach (39) (40). Upon completing the series of questions for each study, the tool provides a rating of risk of bias (low/ moderate/ high) based on the sampling design and data collection methods. We answer each question according to the provided values (“Yes”/ “No”/ “Unclear”/ “Not applicable”). Remarks are included with respect to the IFR estimates within the returned strata of the risk of bias.

Model-based Estimation of Fatality Rates in India during Wave 1, Wave 2, and combined over waves from April 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021

The present study follows the same methodology as the previous versions (13). In brief, we employ a compartmental epidemiologic model, the extended susceptible-exposed-infected-removed (SEIR-fansy), to model the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. Accounting for the false negative rates of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen test type (e.g., RT-PCR and rapid antigen tests) observed in India, we include unascertained cases and deaths as a compartment. As depicted in Supplementary Appendix K Figure S1, the population is further divided into 10 disjoint compartments: S (Susceptible), E (Exposed), T (Tested), U (Untested), P (Tested Positive), F (Tested False Negative), RR (Reported Recovered), RU (Unreported Recovered), DR (Reported Deaths) and DU (Unreported Deaths). A full description of the methodological framework is available in Supplementary Appendix K. Nine differential equations form the basis for imitating the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Parameters and 95% credible intervals (CrI) are estimated using Bayesian techniques by performing Metropolis–Hastings algorithm-based random sampling from the posterior distribution with a Gaussian proposal density.

Considering the inherent differences between the first and second waves of the pandemic (e.g., the strain on the healthcare infrastructure and dearth of medical resources in wave 2), we examine the entailed epidemiological measures for wave 1 and wave 2 separately, with wave 1 as April 1 2020–January 31, 2021 and wave 2 as February 1, 2021–June 30, 2021 (latest until this report). The start date of wave 2 of February 1, 2021 is reasoned as two weeks before the national effective reproduction number crossed unity on February 14, 2021 to allow for time between virus exposure and symptom onset. Daily infected cases, recovered cases, and deaths are collected from covid19india.org (20). We compute nationwide and state-wise fatality rates and case–as well as death– underreporting factors for both wave 1 and wave 2. Additionally, we estimate cumulative infected case and death counts across waves 1 and 2 adjusting for the respective underreporting factors. To obtain the combined number of cases across both waves, we multiply the wave-specific infections with the underreporting estimate and sum across the two waves. Similarly, to obtain the combined number of deaths across both waves, we compute the combined number of deaths by multiplying the wave-specific deaths with the underreporting estimate and sum across the two waves. Lastly, an overall infection fatality rate (IFR) for India as of 30 June 2021 is provided as the estimated cumulative number of deaths divided by the estimated cumulative number of infections.

Search Results and Included Studies

As shown in Figure 1 below, the search resulted in a total of 5174 citations across the four search engines: PubMed (2940), Embase (1119), WHO Global Index Medicus (Southeast Asia Region: 5, Eastern Mediterranean Region: 2), and isearch (1078). After removing duplicate citations across databases, 4765 articles were screened in the initial level of title/abstract, and we reviewed 137 articles in the second level of full-text screening. Of these studies, 61 studies were excluded as no seroprevalence, nor infection fatality rate estimates were presented. Moreover, 18 studies were excluded as the cohort consisted of healthcare workers, 15 studies were excluded as the cohort consisted of patients from hospitals, urgent care units, or tertiary care centers, 5 studies were excluded because the cohorts were limited to either asymptomatic (4 studies) or symptomatic (1 study) individuals, 4 studies were excluded as the cohort consisted of working individuals, 2 studies were excluded as the cohort consisted of blood donors, 2 studies were excluded as the cohort was sampled from testing centers, 1 study was excluded because the cohort consisted of members from elderly care centers, 1 study was excluded as the participants were actively recruited. Overall, across these subpopulations, 48 studies were collectively excluded for the reason of having narrow or non-representative samples, which in turn impedes generalizability to the broader target population within the location of study.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram (41)

Qualitative Review

Quantitative Summary for India: Meta-analysis of Infection Fatality Rates (IFR)

Of the 37 eligible studies in the narrative review, 19 and 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis of IFR₁ and IFR₂, respectively. Supplementary Appendix G lists the studies that were not able to be included in the meta-analysis and each respective reason for exclusion. To summarize, the reasons for exclusion include: (a) did not provide a 95% confidence interval for the seroprevalence and/or IFR estimate, (b) fatality data were unavailable for the study location (e.g., city or select districts) from covid19india.org (20), (b) excess deaths data were unavailable at the state level for the study location in order to derive the death underreporting factor, (d) studies in Pakistan as previously discussed the meta-analysis focuses on India, and (e) studies that stratify by slum versus non-slum and do not provide an overall estimates are excluded, as individuals living in slum areas tend to be of low socioeconomic status relative to persons in non-slum areas.

Nationwide IFR₁ and IFR₂

Figure 2 presents the results of the nationwide meta-analysis of IFR₁ for India. Using a random effects approach with DL estimation, the estimated nationwide pooled SARS-CoV-2 IFR₁ for India is 0.097% (95% CI: 0.067 – 0.140). This suggests a nationwide SARS-CoV-2 fatality ratio for India of 97 deaths per 100,000 infections, when not accounting for underreporting of deaths. As seen in Figure 2, there is considerable variation in the time periods encompassed in the studies belying this overall estimate. The range of IFR₁ (from highest to lowest) among the included studies is 0.199% (4 June 2020) to 0.055% (6 July 2021).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Nationwide estimated pooled IFR₁ of SARS-CoV-2 for India.

Note: * = IFR₁ precalculated. ** = IFR₂ precalculated. *** = both IFR₁ and IFR₂ precalculated. For those with no stars, IFR₁ and IFR₂ as well as 95% CIs were computed.

Figure 3 shows the results of the nationwide meta-analysis of IFR₂ for India. Using a random effects approach with DL estimation, the estimated nationwide pooled SARS-CoV-2 IFR₂ for India ranges from 0.365% (95% CI: 0.264 – 0.504) to 0.485% (95% CI: 0.344 – 0.685), when applying the lower and higher ends of the uncertainty bracket for death underreporting, respectively. This can be interpreted as a nationwide SARS-CoV-2 fatality ratio for India of 365-485 deaths per 100,000 infections, when further adjusting for underreporting of deaths.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Nationwide estimated pooled IFR₂ of SARS-CoV-2 for India, with lower and higher URF uncertainty.

Note: * = IFR₁ precalculated. ** = IFR₂ precalculated. *** = both IFR₁ and IFR₂ precalculated. For those with no stars, IFR₁ and IFR₂ as well as 95% CIs were computed.

A detailed forest plot of the nationwide seroprevalences of SARS-CoV-2 in India, as well as the accompanying 95% confidence interval, underlying the computed nationwide IFRs, as directly reported in the included studies, can be found in Supplementary Appendix H Figure 1.

With respect to observed time trends from this meta-analysis, Table 4 includes a comparison of the case fatality rate (CFR) to IFR₁ and IFR₂ in waves 1 versus combined across waves 1 and 2. Both the CFR (i.e., not accounting for case nor death underreporting) and IFR₁ (i.e., not accounting for death underreporting) have decreased overtime. Specifically, the nationwide CFR has decreased from 5.56% in June 2020 to 1.36% in July 2021 (Table 4). The nationwide IFR₁ has also largely been decreasing over time from 0.199% (4 June 2020) to 0.055% (6 July 2021), based on estimates (both precalculated and computed) from included studies (Table 4). Whereas for IFR₂ (i.e., when adjusting for both case and death undercounting) this trend is not readily apparent. As a whole, IFR₂ has changed overtime between 0.290% (4 June 2020) to 0.241-0.651% (6 July 2021), oscillating between 0.241% (6 Jan 2021) to 0.916-1.316% (4 June 2020), as detailed in Table 4. The absence of this trend for IFR₂ reconciles with the large excess deaths estimates observed for wave 2 compared to wave 1 (Table 2) and, in particular, the increase in the nationwide death URFs of 3.8-4.2 (wave 1) to 10.1-11.2 (wave 2) (Table 2), as derived from the excess deaths estimated in Deshmukh et al., 2021 (22).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 4.

Comparison of nationwide CFR to IFR₁ and IFR₂ from included studies for wave 1 and across waves.

Regional and Statewide IFR₁ and IFR₂

Detailed estimates of regional pooled IFR₁ and IFR₂ of SARS-CoV-2 in India and 95% confidence intervals (CI), as well as the statewide pooled IFR₁ and IFR₂ estimates inputted for each region, are presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Using the same random effects model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation as in the nationwide analysis, the regional pooled IFR₁ is estimated to be the following (as ordered from highest to lowest pooled effect size and reporting only regions with more than one state): East 0.136% (95% CI: 0.062 – 0.302), West 0.125% (95% CI: 0.052 – 0.303), North 0.109% (95% CI: 0.037 – 0.325), and South 0.062% (95% CI: 0.023 – 0.164) (Figure 4). Hence, East and West India have the largest estimated IFR₁ of 0.136% and 0.125%, respectively, suggesting estimated infection fatality rates (when not adjusting for underreporting) for SARS-CoV-2 of 136 deaths per 100,000 persons and 125 deaths pers 100,000 persons in these regions, respectively. The estimate for the East is largely driven by the comparatively high statewide IFR₁ estimate for West Bengal of 0.322% (95% CI: 0.290 – 0.357), whereas the estimate for the West is driven by Maharashtra (0.244%) (Figure 4). The lowest IFR₁ estimate is for South India of 0.062 (95% CI: 0.023 – 0.164), backed by the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka which have the lowest statewide pooled IFR₁ of 0.019% and 0.019%, respectively (Figure 4). Also considering regions with 1 state, pooled regional IFR₁ estimates range from 0.062 for South to 0.174% for Central.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Regional estimated pooled IFR₁ of SARS-CoV-2 for India.

Note: * = IFR₁ precalculated. ** = IFR₂ precalculated. *** = both IFR₁ and IFR₂ precalculated. For those with no stars, IFR₁ and IFR₂ as well as 95% CIs were computed.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Regional estimated pooled IFR₂ of SARS-CoV-2 for India, with lower and higher URF uncertainty.

Note: State-specific IFRs in this forest plot are pooled estimates across included studies encompassed in each state.

We also find considerable heterogeneity exists even within each respective region in India. As examples, the statewide pooled IFR₁ varies in the North from 0.043% (Jammu and Kashmir) to 0.362% (Punjab), in the South from 0.019% (Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, respectively) to 0.162% (Puducherry), and in the West from 0.051% (Goa) to 0.244% (Maharashtra).

Using the same random effects model with DL estimation, the range of the regional pooled IFR₂ is estimated to be the following (as ordered from highest to lowest pooled effect size and considering only regions with >1 state): North 0.477% (95% CI: 0.250 – 0.911) to 0.477% (95% CI: 0.250 – 0.911), West 0.396% (95% CI: 0.294 – 0.534) to 0.399% (95% CI: 0.297 – 0.535), East 0.304% (95% CI: 0.153 – 0.605) to 0.304% (95% CI: 0.153 – 0.605), and South 0.191% (95% CI: 0.165 – 0.223) to 0.205% (95% CI: 0.175 – 0.241) (Figure 5). Hence, North and West India have the largest estimated IFR₂ of 0.477-0.477% and 0.396-0.399%, respectively, indicating estimated infection fatality rates (when adjusting for death underreporting) for SARS-CoV-2 of 477 deaths per 100,000 persons and 396-399 deaths per 100,000 persons in these regions, respectively. The Northern IFR₂ estimate is largely driven by the comparatively high statewide IFR₂ estimate for Punjab (1.010%) which has the second highest statewide pooled IFR₂ (after Madhya Pradesh at 1.061%) of all states encompassed among the included studies, whereas the estimate for the West is driven by Gujarat (0.607%) (Figure 5). The lowest IFR₂ estimate is again for South India of 0.191-0.205% (among regions with >1 state), backed by Karnataka and Kerala which have the lowest statewide pooled IFR₂ of 0.067-0.083% and 0.144%, respectively (Figure 5). In sum, when considering regions with 1 state, pooled regional IFR₂ estimates range from 0.168% for Northeast to 1.061% for Central.

A detailed forest plot of the state, city and district-specific seroprevalences of SARS-CoV-2 in India, as well as the accompanying 95% confidence interval, belying the computed regional and statewide IFRs, as directly reported in the included studies, can be found in Supplementary Appendix H Figure 1.

Key Findings

• ✤ Regional pooled IFR1 estimates within India range from a low of 0.062% in the South to a high of 0.136% in the East. Regional pooled IFR2 estimates range from [0.191 – 0.205%] in the South to [0.477%] in the North.

• ✤ Considerable within region heterogeneity is also observed, as pooled state specific IFR1 and IFR2 estimates are evidenced to vary within regions.

We present a funnel plot of the standard error of the effect sizes of the included studies in Figure 6 as a standard method for examining publication bias. Although the results show asymmetry, in the context of seroprevalence proportions from serosurveys, which comprise the bulk of the study designs, this does not necessarily indicate the presence of publication bias (79). Instead, we suspect that the asymmetry is due to heterogeneity in the actual effect sizes of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among the populations captured by the included studies. A detailed assessment of publication bias is presented in Supplemental Appendix J. The results of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) assessment for risk of bias within each included study can be found in Supplemental Appendix I.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6.

Funnel plot for examination of publication bias across included studies.

Data files and code used to produce the above results are available on GitHub at the following repository: https://github.com/lzimmermann4/india_c19_ifrs.

Updated Model-based estimates of Wave 1 and Wave 2 Fatalities

Since wave 1 is defined analogously as in the latest report (13) and the underlying data are the same, the wave 1 estimates presented herein are unchanged. Briefly, when adjusting the denominator by the estimated cases underreporting factor of 11.11 (95% CrI 10.71 – 11.47), the nationwide IFR₁ estimate (defined as observed cumulative deaths/estimated total cumulative infections) for wave 1 is 0.129% (95% CrI 0.125 – 0.134). When further adjusting the numerator by the estimated death underreporting factor of 3.56 (95% CrI 3.48 – 3.64), we obtain a nationwide IFR₂ estimate (i.e., estimated cumulative total deaths/estimated cumulative total infections) for wave 1 of 0.461% (95% CrI 0.455 – 0.468). The wave 1 IFR₂ estimate is largely congruent to the estimated effect sizes from the latest nationwide serosurvey in India (59) in that it falls within the bounds of the computed IFR₂ herein for the 4^th nationwide serosurvey of 0.241-0.651%, when applying a death underreporting factor range of 4.4 (1.79 million excess deaths (21)) to 11.9 (4.9 million excess deaths (23)).

Since wave 2 data extend to June 30, 2021, using the same compartmental epidemiological model we estimate case and death underreporting factors of 13.3 (95% CrI 11.4 – 14.6) and 3.46 (95% CrI 3.13 – 3.69), respectively. As such, the nationwide IFR₁ estimate for wave 2 is 0.095% (95% CrI 0.086 – 0.109), which is slightly higher than the previously reported estimate of 0.032% (95% CrI 0.029% – 0.035%) as of May 15, 2021 (i.e. near the peak of wave 2 in India) (13). The nationwide IFR₂ estimate for wave 1 is 0.326% (95% CrI 0.316 – 0.342), which is higher than our latest reported estimate of 0.183% (95% CrI 0.180 – 0.186) as of May 15, 2021 (13). The current estimates of the IFR for wave 2 have increased in magnitude in comparison to than past estimates due to having a time period that better reflects the trajectory of the second wave and data that encompass both the ascent and descent of cases and deaths. Moreover, the updated underreporting factors for cases and deaths are half the size of previous underreporting factors for wave 2 (i.e. 26.73 (95% CrI 24.26 – 28.81) and 5.77 (95% CrI 5.34 – 6.15), respectively, as of May 15) (13) and have largely converged in magnitude to the underreporting factors for wave 1.

Figure 6 contains the case and death underreporting factors and estimated number of infections and deaths for waves 1 and 2, respectively, for India. State-level estimates of IFR₁ and IFR₂ for waves 1 and 2 are reported in Supplementary Appendix N Figure 2, which shows the between state variation in these measures for wave 1 and wave 2, respectively, for the 20 states with high cases-deaths within India.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6.

Comparison of observed and estimated case and death counts and corresponding underreporting factors from wave 1, wave 2 and both combined.

Combined estimates across the waves

As shown in Figures 6 above, the total cases (reported and unreported) is estimated to be 381.6 million and the total deaths (reported and unreported) to be 1.4 million, across waves 1 and 2 for India. Subsequently, the combined infection fatality rate (IFR) across both waves is estimated to be 0.101% for IFR₁, and 0.367% for IFR₂ (as previously defined). State-level case and death underreporting factors for India are included in Supplementary Appendix N Tables 1-3 and Figure 3.

We also include a state and country level comparison of the estimated case underreporting factors across both waves to the estimated case under counting factors presented by ICSM in the 4^th nationwide seroprevalence survey (as of May 31, 2021) for India (59) (see Supplementary Appendix N Table 4). Briefly, the estimated case underreporting factors presented herein are lower at large than the case undercounting factors announced for the 4^th nationwide seroprevalence survey (59), with the exceptions of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Kerala where the case underreporting factors that we estimate are larger, as well as Maharashtra where the case underreporting factor is the same. As such, we present estimated case underreporting factors that are conservative with respect to the recent nationwide serosurvey under counting estimates. The true extent of the magnitude of infections absent in reported case counts is wagered to lie somewhere in between.

Neighboring Countries

Despite there being insufficient data and sparse eligible studies in the neighboring countries, a brief snapshot into the SARS-CoV-2 situation within each country shows that the case fatality rate (unadjusted for underreporting) in neighboring countries is at par with India, if not higher. In Table 5, we provide a comparison of nationwide CFRs, as of 31 July 2021, within each of the countries included in this review (i.e., India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka). Of these five countries, Pakistan stands out as having the highest CFR at 2.37% with 1.02 million cumulative reported infections and 24 thousand cumulative reported deaths (31 July 2021). Whereas India in fact has the lowest CFR of these 5 countries at 1.36%, but less surprisingly given its large population has the highest reported death and confirmed infection toll of 430 thousand and 31.6 million (31 July 2021), respectively. We recognize and caution that the CFR is an imperfect measure of the true SARS-CoV-2 fatality rate and that levels of underreporting of deaths and cases vary by country (8). In sum, Table 5 also presents a CFR across the countries included in this systematic review which is 1.42% to summarize the observed mortality rate in this region. The CFR among the neighboring countries alone is 1.96% which indicates that the SARS-CoV-2 observed mortality rate of the neighboring countries appears to be similar to that of India, if not slightly higher (whilst cautioning the fog of undercounting).

Summary on fatality rates in India

For India, there were enough eligible studies to perform a meta-analysis of infection fatality rates. A key result of the meta-analysis concerning the nationwide IFR estimates for India is that both the CFR (i.e., not accounting for infection nor death underreporting) and IFR₁ (i.e., not accounting for death underreporting) have decreased over time, whereas IFR₂ appears to have remained same or even increased in some studies over time. In other words, when failing to take into account case and/or death underreporting (i.e., CFR and IFR₁), the SARS-CoV-2 mortality rate falsely appears to be decreasing. However, when correctly adjusting for both underreporting of infections and deaths (i.e., IFR₂), we do not observe that less deaths are resulting from the same number of infections through wave 2 compared to wave 1. This aligns with the catastrophic collapse of the healthcare system observed at large in India during the second wave of the pandemic (2). In sum, use of either the CFR or IFR₁ (not accounting for death underreporting) alone may be deceptively misleading, and IFR₂ should also be utilized in public health programming and policy decision making.

The narrative review of general population SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate or seroprevalence studies brought forth some trends concerning virus spread and fatality. In India, dense urban areas and slum dwellings have been found to have markedly higher prevalence rates in comparison to non-slum or rural locations (e.g., 58.4% (95% CI: 56.8– 59.9) among slums versus 17.3% (95% CI: 16.0–18.7) for Mumbai (58) among non-slums, and 57.9% (95% CI: 53.4–62.3) among a slum in Bengaluru (51)). Trends in the infection fatality rates (IFRs) are less obvious among the albeit limited number of slum population-focused seroprevalence studies in this region. A study in Mumbai found the IFR of SARS-CoV-2 in slums to be one-third the size of that of non-slums (i.e. 0.076% among slums versus 0.263% among non-slums (58)). Similarly, another study on a slum in Bengaluru estimated the IFR to be 2.94 deaths per 10,000 infections (or 0.029%) (51).

When estimating regional and statewide IFR estimates for India, the latest available studies for certain regions was during the outset of the pandemic (e.g., Central India with both input studies around August 2020). Such variation in study time periods highlights the need for updated seroprevalence studies in select regions. The findings from this regional meta-analysis also underscore the geographical differences in data collection/research spread across India. A large number of the included studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis were in the South and North, with substantially less coverage in the Central and Northeast regions. Moreover, no eligible serosurveys were available for the region Northeast India (which includes the following states: Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura). This leads us to the limitations of the meta-analysis presented herein.

Limitations of Meta-analysis

We were not able to incorporate Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, nor Sri Lanka in the meta-analysis presented in this paper as no eligible studies were available for these countries (aside from Pakistan, which had 2 included seroprevalence surveys), as previously discussed in the Results section. There were insufficient age-as well as sex-disaggregated IFRs for India (and for the neighboring countries) to examine heterogeneity in IFR estimates by either demographic. Furthermore, although age and sex-disaggregated seroprevalence estimates were extracted from the included studies, disaggregated deaths and cases by these demographics are not available for India nor for its states, cities, nor districts, at the time of this review. Additionally, there were insufficient data on excess deaths for select states (e.g., Jammu and Kashmir and Puducherry) that precluded our ability to compute IFR₂ for studies encompassed in these states and, as such, we were unable to include these studies in the meta-analysis for the regional IFR₂. Additionally, we caution that several of the included studies in the quantitative synthesis are in the process of being peer-reviewed, and so multiple underlying datapoints have not yet been verified.

Lastly, we note that global studies that examine India along with multiple other countries (as part of a country level global analysis) but do not explicitly refer to India in the title/abstract would not be captured by our published search strategy. Therefore, a limitation of the meta-analysis is that these IFR estimates for India from global studies are not comprehensively reflected in the empirical results of IFRs and similarly in the excess deaths synthesis. For example, a recent study by Rahmandad et al. (2021) (82) that appears (exact estimates are not reported) to estimate for India a ratio of estimated to reported deaths on the log scale in the ballpark of 1.2-1.5 (i.e. 3.3-4.4 when exponentiated) and an IFR near 0.4-0.5% for India (as of 22 December 2020), as part of a global analysis of 92 nations, was not captured (no explicit reference to India in title/abstract). Hence, this is an example of model-based estimates not reflected in the empirical findings evidenced in this report.

Recommendations moving forward

Based on the empirical and model-based findings evidenced in this report, we provide some high-level recommendations, primarily, as it concerns India. To reiterate, investigations aimed at estimating the true extent of COVID-19 attributed deaths in India have relied on a myriad of data sources (Table A). Such data sources do not come without their challenges (e.g., non-response bias and selection bias), and often lead to considerable variation in the ultimate results. For example, Ramachandran and Malani (2021) provide a higher estimate of excess deaths for India of 5.21 million (compared to their 3.36 million excess deaths estimate) for January 2020 to June 2021, when further considering households that do not respond consecutively (30). Given that no current all-cause mortality data exist for India at the time of this report with the latest release in 2010-2013, linking data sources in this manner is a common alternative. We encourage the release of timely and disaggregated data on SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths, as are needed to assess stratified effects by age-sex-geography(5). Despite geographic heterogeneity, quality of case and death reporting remains of great concern for India and continues to mask the true fatality rate as well as impede ongoing epidemiological investigations. In the absence of all-cause and disaggregated COVID-19 mortality data, tools (e.g., a personal digital health identifier) (5) and fortified vital surveillance methods (e.g., monitoring inactive bank accounts) and practices (e.g., increased community engagement) (5) are needed to facilitate and validate the use of the previously mentioned data sources and others. Strengthening the nationwide vital surveillance system in these ways would enable timely and pointed interventions from public health and government officials to ultimately prevent further overload of healthcare systems and loss of life. To put the excess deaths synthesis into context, the range of death underreporting factor for India of 4.4-11.9 (based on 1.79-11.9 million excess deaths from (21) and (23), respectively) falls toward the higher end of the global death undercounting factor of 3.3 (95% CI: 2.1-4) estimated by the Economist (as of May 2021) (83). This indicates that the extent of death underreporting, as it pertains to SARS-CoV-2 remains particularly acute for India as compared to that of globally.

Why death matters?

From an economic perspective, why is it necessary to do these mortality calculations? Death matters because life matters – prolonging life is a goal, not merely a means to generate economic value. The widely used human development index (HDI) of the World Bank takes a multi-dimensional approach to measuring welfare. Material wellbeing (GDP) is only one of its three components; the others involve knowledge (literacy rate) and life (life expectancy at birth).

Nevertheless, for the purpose of cost-benefit analysis and economic evaluation of public health measures, it is useful to be able to assign a monetary value to every life lost or saved. Measuring the value of a life by lost earnings or productivity is deeply flawed – it would, for example, have the absurd implication that the lives of non-working individuals have no value at all. The most commonly used approach to estimating the value of a statistical life (VSL) adopts the revealed preference or willingness-to-pay (WTP) principle. Hedonic wage regressions estimate the compensating differential (84) in market wages for jobs that involve a higher probability of fatal accidents – a measure of how much income the average worker is willing to sacrifice in order to reduce mortality risk. Sacrificed earnings are then aggregated over the lifetime using present discounted values and scaled up to a probability of 1 to arrive at VSL.

There are several estimates of VSL from developed countries¹ but studies on developing countries including India are few and far between. For our purposes, we will use Majumder and Madheswaran (2018) (85) who estimate VSL for the average male industrial worker in India to be INR 44.69 million (US $0.61 million at current exchange rates)². This may introduce upward as well as downward biases into our calculations. For example, people dying of COVID-19 are, on average, older than the industrial workforce, which implies the mortality cost presented below is an overestimate. On the other hand, wages are only one part of a worker’s economic contribution. A proper accounting of the social value of a life must also account for profits, rents and consumers’ surplus generated by the economic activity of that individual, as well as non-pecuniary benefits conferred on relatives, friends and acquaintances. These are not reflected in private WTP and are therefore a source of underestimating VSL. The calculations presented below are ballpark figures that will reflect reality closely if the above-mentioned biases largely cancel each other out.

Table 6 below monetizes the death toll of COVID-19 in India till June 2021. Based on reported death figures alone, the economic cost of Covid-induced mortality comes to around 9% of India’s annual GDP. If we use the model-based estimates or the lower end of the range of excess death estimates, we incur a notional cost of 30-40% of annual GDP. Note that the official decline in India’s GDP in the fiscal year 2020-21 is 7.7%, which is a gross underestimate of the true loss once the value of lives is taken into account. By various estimates, the fiscal outlay of the government in its financial rescue package was about 1% of GDP. This is a very small fraction of what is at stake in this pandemic. Total healthcare spending in 2018 by the central and state governments taken together was only 1.28% of GDP, which again illustrates the serious under-investment in mitigating health shocks like COVID-19.

Other than national estimates of mortality and IFR, there is considerable value to measuring infections and deaths across gender, caste, income levels, regions, etc. These can be useful guides for policymakers, telling them where scarce healthcare resources and aid should be concentrated. The within-country heterogeneity in both the epidemiological and economic impact of the disease has been noted in studies from all parts of the world. Unfortunately, absence of disaggregated data has tied the hands of researchers in India. Nevertheless, our meta-analysis uncovers substantial regional variations in IFR₂, from a low of 0.191 – 0.205% in the South to a high of 0.477% in the North. These differences are plausibly created by socio-economic factors (like differences in quality of governance and healthcare) rather than biological ones and provide policymakers the information necessary for welfare arbitrage and efficient resource allocation.

In closing, premature mortality is not only an indicator of health but also of economic cost and productivity, as discussed above and as has been evidenced for other health conditions in India (91). Furthermore, unforeseen death within a family or community may disturb the livelihood and income generation structure, thereby pervading to the broader welfare of impacted individuals, although reverse causation is present (92). Aside from the health lens, premature mortality and infectious disease mortality’s consequences for economic stability and ensuing welfare policy further support the need for continued attention to assessing the mortality burden of COVID-19 within India.