Serosurveillance and the COVID-19 Epidemic in the US

Brown, Tyler S.; Walensky, Rochelle P.

doi:10.1001/jama.2020.14017

Cited by 38 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• Blood donors. Only a small fraction of blood donors are ages 60 and above-a fundamental limitation in assessing COVID-19 prevalence and IFRs for older age groups-and the social behavior of blood donors may be systematically different from their peers [13,18]. These concerns can be directly investigated by comparing alternative seroprevalence surveys of the same geographical location.…”

Section: Sampling Framementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, divergences in study design and reporting have hampered comparisons of seroprevalence and IFRs across locations and demographic groups. For example, a number of studies have analyzed a representative sample of the general population, while other studies have made use of "convenience samples" of residual sera collected for other purposes (such as laboratory tests or blood donations) [12][13][14]. Some studies have simply reported results for raw prevalence (the fraction of seropositive results), whereas other studies have reported results adjusted for antibody test characteristics (sensitivity and specificity).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determine age-specific infection fatality rates for COVID-19 to inform public health policies and communications that help protect vulnerable age groups. Studies of COVID-19 prevalence were collected by conducting an online search of published articles, preprints, and government reports that were publicly disseminated prior to 18 September 2020. The systematic review encompassed 113 studies, of which 27 studies (covering 34 geographical locations) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Age-specific IFRs were computed using the prevalence data in conjunction with reported fatalities 4 weeks after the midpoint date of the study, reflecting typical lags in fatalities and reporting. Meta-regression procedures in Stata were used to analyze the infection fatality rate (IFR) by age. Our analysis finds a exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85. Moreover, our results indicate that about 90% of the variation in population IFR across geographical locations reflects differences in the age composition of the population and the extent to which relatively vulnerable age groups were exposed to the virus. These results indicate that COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly but also for middle-aged adults, for whom the infection fatality rate is two orders of magnitude greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident and far more dangerous than seasonal influenza. Moreover, the overall IFR for COVID-19 should not be viewed as a fixed parameter but as intrinsically linked to the age-specific pattern of infections. Consequently, public health measures to mitigate infections in older adults could substantially decrease total deaths.

show abstract

Section: Sampling Framementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only a small fraction of blood donors are ages 60 and above-a fundamental limitation in assessing COVID-19 prevalence and IFRs for older age groups-and the social behavior of blood donors may be systematically different from their peers. [8,9] Our critical review has also underscored the pitfalls of seroprevalence studies based on "convenience samples" of residual sera collected for other purposes. For example, two studies assessed seroprevalence of Utah residents during spring 2020.…”

Section: Sampling Framementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only a small fraction of blood donors are ages 60 and above-a fundamental limitation in assessing COVID-19 prevalence and IFRs for older age groups-and the social behavior of blood donors may be systematically different from their peers. [8,9] • Dialysis Centers. Assessing seroprevalence of dialysis patients using residual sera collected at dialysis centers is crucial for gauging the infection risks faced by these individuals, of which a disproportionately high fraction tend to be underrepresented minorities.…”

Section: Sampling Framementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications

Levin

Hanage

Owusu‐Boaitey

et al. 2020

Preprint

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Studying the prevalence of antibodies among healthcare workers (HCWs) in different areas is crucial to understanding the potential risk of transmission, the prevalence of herd immunity, vaccine deployment and risk stratification in different areas of work [2]. Serosurveillance has been done in many different cohorts with prevalence ranging from 2.67% to 24.4% [8,12]. This article is a cross-sectional study on the serological survey conducted shortly after the peak infection among 2110 HCWs working in different areas of a multi-specialty hospital in Eastern India designated as a COVID hospital during this pandemic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serosurveillance of Health Care Workers in a COVID Hospital: Immune Response, and Its Longevity

Mishra¹,

Chaudhry²,

Rana³

et al. 2021

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We aimed to study the seroprevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and sustainability of the immune response in health care workers (HCWs). A cross-sectional study was conducted between October 7 and November 30, 2020, in a multi-specialty hospital in Eastern India designated as COVID hospital during this pandemic. Study participants included 2,110 HCWs, including those who have recovered from COVID infection. Method: HCWs were required to complete a questionnaire and give written consent to participate in the study. Their venous blood sample was collected for serum analysis of IgG antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by chemiluminescent immunoassay. Results: Positive IgG antibodies were seen in 924 participants with a point prevalence of 43.79%. Slightly higher reactivity was seen in males. History of COVID-19 infection was noted in 10.9%, with the highest antibody response in 81% cases. A maximum of 87.9% reactivity was seen in the first two months, and a significant fall was noted in the fourth month, with reactivity seen in only 50% of the study participants. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a variable immune response in the infected population. The declining trend of the antibodies correlates with short-lived protective immunity and the possibility of re-infection. Further studies are needed to explore the probable reasons for varied seroprevalence.

show abstract

Serosurveillance and the COVID-19 Epidemic in the US

Abstract: Investigators. Genetic determinants of response to clopidogrel and cardiovascular events.

Cited by 38 publications

References 12 publications

Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications

Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications

Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications

Serosurveillance of Health Care Workers in a COVID Hospital: Immune Response, and Its Longevity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About