Back

Interpreting changes in reported case fatality in endemic zoonoses: an analytical framework and ecological analysis of Lassa fever surveillance in Nigeria, 2017-26

Simons, D.

2026-10-15 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.10.14.26365510 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background. Nigeria's reported Lassa fever case fatality ratio (CFR) rose from 18.9% at week 23 of 2025 to 25.0% in 2026, prompting concerns over failing clinical care. Because surveillance artefacts can also alter CFRs, candidate mechanisms that published data can resolve were identified and evaluated. Methods. This ecological study extracted weekly state-level counts from 474 Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention situation reports (2017-2026). Per a pre-specified plan, years were compared at phase-matched points, year-on-year CFR changes were decomposed into within-state and between-state components, and tipping-point ascertainment shifts calculated. Weekly incident and cumulative published totals were compared post hoc. Findings. Of 11 candidate mechanisms, 2 could be evaluated fully and 5 in part. On weekly incident counts, 2026 did not differ from 2025 at the phase-matched midpoint (+0.3 percentage points, 95% CI -5.0 to 7.6); within-state (-1.1, 95% CI -4.7 to 3.0) and between-state (+0.5, -2.0 to 2.9) components spanned zero. Conversely, the published cumulative CFR was 5.4 to 6.2 percentage points higher because 70 deaths were added retrospectively by week 36 outside weekly reports. Reconciling cumulative figures would require 279 missed survivors (6% of suspected cases not confirmed). Interpretation. The 2026 CFR rise came from deaths added to cumulative totals outside the weekly counts, and published data cannot attribute it to care. Endemic zoonotic CFRs cannot serve as clinical outcome measures unless testing volumes, deaths added late, and post-mortem sampling are published alongside case counts. Funding. US NSF-NIH-NIFA EEID; UK BBSRC; Birgitta Sintring Fellowship (Uppsala University).

Matching journals

The top 5 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.