Dataset Information

Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Estimates of community spread and infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 have varied across studies. Efforts to synthesize the evidence reach seemingly discrepant conclusions.

Methods

Systematic evaluations of seroprevalence studies that had no restrictions based on country and which estimated either total number of people infected and/or aggregate IFRs were identified. Information was extracted and compared on eligibility criteria, searches, amount of evidence included, corrections/adjustments of seroprevalence and death counts, quantitative syntheses and handling of heterogeneity, main estimates and global representativeness.

Results

Six systematic evaluations were eligible. Each combined data from 10 to 338 studies (9-50 countries), because of different eligibility criteria. Two evaluations had some overt flaws in data, violations of stated eligibility criteria and biased eligibility criteria (eg excluding studies with few deaths) that consistently inflated IFR estimates. Perusal of quantitative synthesis methods also exhibited several challenges and biases. Global representativeness was low with 78%-100% of the evidence coming from Europe or the Americas; the two most problematic evaluations considered only one study from other continents. Allowing for these caveats, four evaluations largely agreed in their main final estimates for global spread of the pandemic and the other two evaluations would also agree after correcting overt flaws and biases.

Conclusions

All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

SUBMITTER: Ioannidis JPA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8250317 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo estimate age-specific and sex-specific mortality risk among all SARS-CoV-2 infections in four settings in India, a major lower-middle-income country and to compare age trends in mortality with similar estimates in high-income countries.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingIndia, multiple regions representing combined population >150 million.ParticipantsAggregate infection counts were drawn from four large population-representative prevalence/seroprevalence surveys. Data on corresponding number of deaths were drawn from official government reports of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 deaths.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was age-specific and sex-specific infection fatality rate (IFR), estimated as the number of confirmed deaths per infection. The secondary outcome was the slope of the IFR-by-age function, representing increased risk associated with age.ResultsAmong males aged 50-89, measured IFR was 0.12% in Karnataka (95% CI 0.09% to 0.15%), 0.42% in Tamil Nadu (95% CI 0.39% to 0.45%), 0.53% in Mumbai (95% CI 0.52% to 0.54%) and an imprecise 5.64% (95% CI 0% to 11.16%) among migrants returning to Bihar. Estimated IFR was approximately twice as high for males as for females, heterogeneous across contexts and rose less dramatically at older ages compared with similar studies in high-income countries.ConclusionsEstimated age-specific IFRs during the first wave varied substantially across India. While estimated IFRs in Mumbai, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu were considerably lower than comparable estimates from high-income countries, adjustment for under-reporting based on crude estimates of excess mortality puts them almost exactly equal with higher-income country benchmarks. In a marginalised migrant population, estimated IFRs were much higher than in other contexts around the world. Estimated IFRs suggest that the elderly in India are at an advantage relative to peers in high-income countries. Our findings suggest that the standard estimation approach may substantially underestimate IFR in low-income settings due to under-reporting of COVID-19 deaths, and that COVID-19 IFRs may be similar in low-income and high-income settings.

Project description:Importance:The global patterns and distribution of case-fatality rates (CFRs) in pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock remain poorly described. Objective:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of children with severe sepsis and septic shock to elucidate the patterns of CFRs in developing and developed countries over time. We also described factors associated with CFRs. Data Sources:We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Central systematically for randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies from earliest publication until January 2017, using the keywords "pediatric," "sepsis," "septic shock," and "mortality." Study Selection:Studies involving children with severe sepsis and septic shock that reported CFRs were included. Retrospective studies and studies including only neonates were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis:We conducted our systematic review and meta-analysis in close accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled case-fatality estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis. The associations of study period, study design, sepsis severity, age, and continents in which studies occurred were assessed with meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures:Meta-analyses to provide pooled estimates of CFR of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock over time. Results:Ninety-four studies that included 7561 patients were included. Pooled CFRs were higher in developing countries (31.7% [95% CI, 27.3%-36.4%]) than in developed countries (19.3% [95% CI, 16.4%-22.7%]; P < .001). Meta-analysis of CFRs also showed significant heterogeneity across studies. Continents that include mainly developing countries reported higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios: Africa, 7.89 [95% CI, 6.02-10.32]; P < .001; Asia, 3.81 [95% CI, 3.60-4.03]; P < .001; South America, 2.91 [95% CI, 2.71-3.12]; P < .001) than North America. Septic shock was associated with higher CFRs than severe sepsis (adjusted odds ratios, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.41-1.54]). Younger age was also a risk factor (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.96] per year of increase in age). Earlier study eras were associated with higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios for 1991-2000, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.13-1.37]; P < .001) compared with 2011 to 2016. Time-trend analysis showed higher CFRs over time in developing countries than developed countries. Conclusions and Relevance:Despite the declining trend of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock CFRs, the disparity between developing and developed countries persists. Further characterizations of vulnerable populations and collaborations between developed and developing countries are warranted to reduce the burden of pediatric sepsis globally.

Project description:The World Health Organization (WHO) announced COVID-19, a novel coronavirus outbreak, as a pandemic in 2020. In the month of February 2020, the disease began to spread through the Middle East. The first case of COVID-19 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was identified in March 2020, and it is now one of the region's most affected countries. Analyzing the disease's propagation pattern may aid in the development of pandemic-fighting strategies. This study aims to analyze the trend of COVID-19's spread, its recovery, and mortality in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Two to three major cities from the 13 provinces of the country were chosen, and the rate of infection recovery was recorded from the first month until the number of confirmed cases showed a decline. The data published on the official Ministry of Health website were recorded on an Excel sheet, graphically represented as figures to indicate the pattern of spread. According to the study's findings, COVID-19 positive cases were discovered in the majority of provinces as early as March 2020. The province of Makkah had the largest number of COVID-19 positive cases (30.7%), followed by Riyadh (23%). The province of Al Jowf had the lowest number of COVID-19 cases (0.3%). Tabuk province had the highest rate of recovery (97.8%), followed by the Northern Border Province (96.7%). Makkah province had the highest mortality rate (2.6%), followed by Al Jawf province (2.4%). The peak case-fatality ratio was recorded in August and September. The highest number of tests to detect the COVID-19 was performed in the month of July, and the highest percentage of positive cases was detected in June (19.55%). All the provinces from the month of September 2020 showed a progressive decline in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. According to this study, COVID-19 infection was found in the majority of Saudi Arabian provinces in March 2020, with a peak in June-July 2020. Considering the climatic and demographic characteristics of the region, specific modalities need to be adopted in collaboration with international guidelines to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic.