Dataset Information

Delay-adjusted age- and sex-specific case fatality rates for COVID-19 in South Korea: Evolution in the estimated risk of mortality throughout the epidemic.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The aim of this study was to estimate delay-adjusted case fatality rates (CFRs) for COVID-19 in South Korea, and evaluate how these estimates have evolved over time throughout the epidemic.

Methods

Public data from the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) were used to estimate age- and sex-specific CFRs for COVID-19 in South Korea up to June 12, 2020. We applied statistical methods previously developed to adjust for the delay between diagnosis and death, and presented both delay-adjusted and crude (unadjusted) CFRs throughout the epidemic.

Results

The overall estimated delay-adjusted CFR was 2.39% (3.05% for males and 1.92% for females). Within each age strata where deaths were reported, males were found to have significantly higher CFRs than females. The estimated CFRs increased substantially from age 60 years in males and from 70 years in females. Both the delay-adjusted and crude CFRs were found to have evolved substantially, particularly early in the epidemic, converging only from mid-April 2020.

Conclusions

The CFRs for South Korea provide an estimate of mortality risk in a setting where case ascertainment is likely to be more complete. The evolution in CFRs throughout the epidemic highlights the need for caution when interpreting CFRs calculated at a given time point.

SUBMITTER: Newall AT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7529598 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLimitations in laboratory testing capacity undermine the ability to quantify the overall burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.MethodsWe undertook a population-based serosurvey for SARS-CoV-2 infection in 26 subdistricts, Gauteng Province (population 15.9 million), South Africa, to estimate SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection fatality rate (IFR) triangulating seroprevalence, recorded COVID-19 deaths and excess-mortality data. We employed three-stage random household sampling with a selection probability proportional to the subdistrict size, stratifying the subdistrict census-sampling frame by housing type and then selecting households from selected clusters. The survey started on 4 November 2020, 8 weeks after the end of the first wave (SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test positivity had declined to <10% for the first wave) and coincided with the peak of the second wave. The last sampling was performed on 22 January 2021, which was 9 weeks after the SARS-CoV-2 resurgence. Serum SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin-G (IgG) was measured using a quantitative assay on the Luminex platform.ResultsFrom 6332 individuals in 3453 households, the overall RBD IgG seroprevalence was 19.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 18.1-20.1%] and similar in children and adults. The seroprevalence varied from 5.5% to 43.2% across subdistricts. Conservatively, there were 2 897 120 (95% CI: 2 743 907-3 056 866) SARS-CoV-2 infections, yielding an infection rate of 19 090 per 100 000 until 9 January 2021, when 330 336 COVID-19 cases were recorded. The estimated IFR using recorded COVID-19 deaths (n = 8198) was 0.28% (95% CI: 0.27-0.30) and 0.67% (95% CI: 0.64-0.71) assuming 90% of modelled natural excess deaths were due to COVID-19 (n = 21 582). Notably, 53.8% (65/122) of individuals with previous self-reported confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were RBD IgG seronegative.ConclusionsThe calculated number of SARS-CoV-2 infections was 7.8-fold greater than the recorded COVID-19 cases. The calculated SARS-CoV-2 IFR varied 2.39-fold when calculated using reported COVID-19 deaths (0.28%) compared with excess-mortality-derived COVID-19-attributable deaths (0.67%). Waning RBD IgG may have inadvertently underestimated the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections and conversely overestimated the mortality risk. Epidemic preparedness and response planning for future COVID-19 waves will need to consider the true magnitude of infections, paying close attention to excess-mortality trends rather than absolute reported COVID-19 deaths.