TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Meta-Analysis & Public Policy Implications JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895 SP - 2020.07.23.20160895 AU - Andrew T. Levin AU - Kensington B. Cochran AU - Seamus P. Walsh Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/30/2020.07.23.20160895.abstract N2 - This paper assesses the age specificity of the infection fatality rate (IFR) for COVID-19. Our benchmark meta-regression synthesizes the age-specific IFRs from six recent large-scale seroprevalence studies conducted in Belgium, Geneva, Indiana, New York, Spain, and Sweden. The estimated IFR is close to zero for children and younger adults but rises exponentially with age, reaching about 0.3 percent for ages 50-59, 1.3 percent for ages 60-69, 4.6 percent for ages 70-79, and 25 percent for ages 80 and above. We compare those predictions to the age-specific IFRs implied by recent seroprevalence estimates for nine other U.S. locations, three smale-scale studies, and three countries (Iceland, New Zealand, and Republic of Korea) that have engaged in comprehensive tracking and tracing of COVID-19 infections. We also review seroprevalence studies of 32 other locations whose design was not well-suited for estimating age-specific IFRs. Our findings indicate that COVID-19 is not just dangerous for the elderly and infirm but also for healthy middle-aged adults, for whom the fatality rate is more than 50 times greater than the risk of dying in an automobile accident. Consequently, the overall IFR for a given location is intrinsically linked to the age-specific pattern of infections. In a scenario where the U.S. infection rate reaches 20 percent, our analysis indicates that protecting vulnerable age groups could prevent more than 200,000 deaths.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 identified by online searches. Studies were identified covering a total of 52 locations in advanced economies. Studies were screened using three specific criteria: (i) representative sample of the general population; (ii) effective pandemic containment by the time of the study; and (iii) reporting of age-specific prevalence estimates and confidence intervals. Age-specific IFRs were computed using reported fatalities four weeks after the midpoint date of each study, reflecting the typical pattern of lags in fatalities and reporting. Six studies were identified as benchmarks and used in meta-regression of the infection fatality rate (IFR) as a function of age, using the STATA metareg procedure. The meta-regression results were then compared with age-specific IFRs for 15 other locations --an “out-of-sample” exercise that statisticians commonly use in assessing the validity of forecasting models.Results Our analysis finds a highly significant exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFRs are close to zero for children and younger adults but rise to about 0.3 percent for ages 50-59, 1.3 percent for ages 60-69, 4.6 percent for ages 70-79, and 25 percent for ages 80 and above. Nearly all of the age-specific IFRs included in our meta-analysis fall within the 95% prediction interval of the meta-regression.Discussion Our results indicate that COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly but for middle-aged adults, for whom the infection fatality rate is more than 50 times greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident. Moreover, the overall IFR for COVID-19 should not be viewed as an exogenously fixed parameter but as intrinsically linked to the age-specific pattern of infections. Consequently, individual and collective efforts that minimize infections in older adults could substantially decrease total deaths. In a scenario where the infection rate of the U.S. population reaches 20%, our analysis indicates that protecting vulnerable age groups could prevent over 200,000 deaths.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received for this research.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:This study is a meta-analysis using information from publicly available studies (published articles, Medrxiv preprints, and government reports).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.YesThis 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. ER -