Back

Case Fatality Risk of Norovirus in England During a Period of Strain Replacement, 2022/23 - 2024/25 Seasons

Tang, M. L.; Douglas, A.; Celma, C.; Vivancos, R.; Godbole, G.; Ward, T.; Mellor, J.

2026-01-12 epidemiology
10.64898/2025.12.19.25342373 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNorovirus causes substantial burden to healthcare systems. England experienced high activity in recent seasons alongside a shift in the dominant genotype from GII.4 to GII.17. It remains unclear whether this increased burden reflects changes in severity or other transmission mechanisms associated with the strain replacement. MethodsIndividual-level testing and mortality data in England from 2022/23-2024/25 seasons were linked from national surveillance systems. Piece-wise exponential additive mixed models estimated all-cause case-fatality risk (CFR) for death within 28 days of a positive test, adjusting for age, location, primary or secondary care case identification and temporal effects. Additional analysis tested the effect of the death linkage threshold. ResultsCFR did not differ significantly between GII.4 and GII.17, but increased markedly with age and was substantially higher for cases detected in secondary versus primary care. At the 2024/25 season peak, the CFR for the average cohort case (age 75) was 8.01% (95% CI: 6.88-9.33%) for cases identified in secondary care compared with 1.18% (95% CI: 0.61-2.25%) for primary care, likely driven by different case mixes and unmeasured confounding between patients managed in these settings. InterpretationWe found no evidence that the newly dominant GII.17 genotype had higher CFR than GII.4 among test-positive cases. The increased burden is therefore more consistent with changes in transmissibility, population immunity, or testing dynamics than increased genotype-specific severity. Norovirus remains a major public health threat, and understanding genotype switching supports enhanced surveillance, expanded genotyping, routine clinical data linkage and advanced modelling to inform control strategies.

Matching journals

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

1
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.9%
2
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.1%
3
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.7%
4
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.7%
5
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.1%
6
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.1%
8
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.7%
9
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
10
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
11
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
12
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
13
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
14
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
15
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
16
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
17
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.1%
18
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
21
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
22
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
23
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%