PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Matthieu Domenech de Cellès AU - Elizabeth Goult AU - Jean-Sébastien Casalegno AU - Sarah Kramer TI - The pitfalls of inferring virus-virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: Application to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 AID - 10.1101/2021.09.02.21263018 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.09.02.21263018 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/05/2021.09.02.21263018.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/05/2021.09.02.21263018.full AB - There is growing experimental evidence that many respiratory viruses—including influenza and SARS-CoV-2—can interact, such that their epidemiological dynamics may not be independent. To assess these interactions, standard statistical tests of independence suggest that the prevalence ratio—defined as the ratio of co-infection prevalence to the product of single-infection prevalences—should equal unity for non-interacting pathogens. As a result, earlier epidemiological studies aimed to estimate the prevalence ratio from co-detection prevalence data, under the assumption that deviations from unity implied interaction. To examine the validity of this assumption, we designed a simulation study that built on a broadly applicable epidemiological model of co-circulation of two respiratory viruses causing seasonal epidemics. By focusing on the pair influenza–SARS-CoV-2, we first demonstrate that the prevalence ratio systematically under-estimates the strength of interaction, and can even misclassify antagonistic or synergistic interactions that persist after clearance of infection. In a global sensitivity analysis, we further identify properties of viral infection—such as a high reproduction number or a short infectious period—that blur the interaction inferred from the prevalence ratio. Altogether, our results suggest that epidemiological studies based on co-detection prevalence data provide a poor guide to assess interactions among respiratory viruses.Competing Interest StatementMDdC received postdoctoral funding (2017-2019) from Pfizer and consulting fees from GSK. All other authors declare no competing interests.Funding StatementNo specific funding was used for this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No IRB approval was needed for this study.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll R programming codes can be found at https://transfer.mpiib-berlin.mpg.de/s/mKpySLNBcZoQt8D and will be made freely available via a digital repository upon publication.COVID-19coronavirus disease 2019SARS-CoV-2severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2RSVrespiratory syncytial virus