Back

The male excess in case-fatality rates for COVID-19. A meta-analytic study of the age-related differences and consistency over six countries

Green, M. S.; Swartz, N.; Nitzan, D.; Peer, V.

2020-06-12 epidemiology
10.1101/2020.06.11.20128439 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was noted that males seemed to be more affected than females. We examined the magnitude and consistency of the sex differences in age-specific case-fatality rates (CFRs) in six countries. MethodsData on the cases and deaths from COVID-19, by sex and age group, were extracted from the published reports from Denmark, England, Israel, Italy, Spain, and the United States. Age-specific CFRs were computed for males and females separately. The ratio of the male to female CFRs were computed and meta-analytic methods were used to obtained pooled estimates of the male to female ratio of the CFRs over the six countries, for seven age-groups. FindingsThe CFRs were consistently higher in males at all ages. The differences were greater in the younger age groups. The pooled M:F CFR ratios were 2.53, 2.92, 2.57, 1.83, 1.57, 1.58 and 1.48 for ages 0-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89 and 90+. There was remarkable consistency between countries in the magnitude of the M:F CFRs, in each age group. In meta-regression, age group explained almost all the heterogeneity in the CFR ratios. ConclusionsThe sex differences in the CFRs are intriguing and are compatible with the male dominance in the incidence rates of many infectious diseases. For COVID-19, factors such as sex differences in the prevalence of underlying diseases may play a part in the CFR differences. However, the greater severity of the disease in males, particularly at younger ages, may be part of the disease mechanism and should be explored further. FundingNo funding was provided for this study. The authors declare no conflict of interests

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.