Robustly Quantifying Uncertainty in International Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Infection Fatality Ratios
Gada, L.; Afuleni, M. K.; Noble, M.; House, T.; Finnie, T.
Show abstract
Knowing the mortality rates associated with infection by a pathogen is essential for effective preparedness and response. Here, harnessing the flexibility of a Bayesian approach, we produce an estimate of the Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) for A(H5N1) conditional on explicit assumptions, and quantify the uncertainty thereof. We also apply the method to first-wave COVID-19 data up to March 2020, demonstrating the estimates that could be obtained were the model available then. Our analysis uses World Development Indicators (WDI) from the World Bank, the A(H5N1) WHO confirmed cases and deaths tracker by country (2003-2024), and COVID-19 cases and deaths data from John Hopkins University (January and February 2020). Since infectious disease dynamics are typically influenced by local socio-economic factors rather than political borders, individual countries are placed within clusters of countries sharing similar WDIs relevant to respiratory viral diseases, with clusters derived by performing Hierarchical Clustering. To estimate the IFR, we fit a Negative Binomial Bayesian Hierarchical Model for A(H5N1) and COVID-19 separately. We explicitly modelled key unobserved parameters with informative priors from expert opinion and literature. By modelling underreporting, our analysis suggests lower fatality (15.3%) compared to WHOs Case Fatality Ratio estimate (54%) on lab-confirmed cases. However, credible intervals are wide ([0.5%, 64.2%] 95% CrI). Therefore, good preparedness for a potential A(H5N1) pandemic implies adopting scenario planning under our central estimate, as well as for IFRs as high as 70%. Our approach also returns a COVID-19 IFR estimate of 2.8% with [2.5%, 3.1%] 95% CrI which is consistent with literature. Key MessagesO_LIWe adopted a disease-agnostic and adaptable Bayesian model, embedding scientific knowledge on A(H5N1) in the priors informed by published literature, to estimate the Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) of avian influenza A(H5N1). C_LIO_LIAccounting for underreporting of cases and deaths, we estimate the IFR of avian influenza A(H5N1) at 15.3%, albeit with wide uncertainty ([0.5%, 64.2%] 95% Credible Intervals). C_LIO_LIDue to the uncertainty in the estimate, good preparedness for a potential A(H5N1) pandemic implies adopting scenario planning under our central estimate, as well as for IFRs as high as 70%. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A novel computational approach to reconstruct SARS-CoV-2 infection dynamics through the inference of unsampled sources of infection 95%
- Transmission network reconstruction for foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks incorporating farm-level covariates 95%
- The basic reproduction number of COVID-19 across Africa 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Measuring the unknown: an estimator and simulation study for assessing case reporting during epidemics 96%
- Quantifying epidemiological drivers of gambiense human African Trypanosomiasis across the Democratic Republic of Congo 96%
- Using real-time data to guide decision-making during an influenza pandemic: a modelling analysis 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- A simulation-based approach for estimating the time-dependent reproduction number from temporally aggregated disease incidence time series data 95%
- Appropriately smoothing prevalence data to inform estimates of growth rate and reproduction number 95%
- The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Switzerland and its impact on disease spread 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The Role of Modelling and Analytics in South African COVID-19 Planning and Budgeting 94%
- Assessing yellow fever outbreak potential and implications for vaccine strategy 94%
- Targeted vaccination is effective for mpox clade Ib in England despite increased household transmission: predictions from a modelling study 93%
"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.