ABSTRACT
Wastewater based epidemiology has become a widely used tool for monitoring trends of concentrations of different pathogens, most notably and widespread of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, in 2022, also in Rhineland-Palatinate, the Ministry of Science and Health has included 16 wastewater treatment sites in a surveillance program providing biweekly samples. However, the mere viral load data is subject to strong fluctuations and has limited value for political deciders on its own. Therefore, the state of Rhineland-Palatinate has commissioned the University Medical Center at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz to conduct a representative cohort study called SentiSurv, in which an increasing number of up to 12,000 participants have been using sensitive antigen self-tests once or twice a week to test themselves for SARS-CoV-2 and report their status. This puts the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in the fortunate position of having time series of both, the viral load in wastewater and the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population. Our main contribution is a calibration study based on the data from 2023-01-08 until 2023-10-01 where we identified a scaling factor ( 0.208 ± 0.031 ) and a delay ( 5.07 ± 2.30 days) between the virus load in wastewater, normalized by the pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV), and the prevalence recorded in the SentiSurv study. The relation is established by fitting an epidemiological model to both time series. We show how that can be used to estimate the prevalence when the cohort data is no longer available and how to use it as a forecasting instrument several weeks ahead of time. We show that the calibration and forecasting quality and the resulting factors depend strongly on how wastewater samples are normalized.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load , Wastewater , Wastewater/virology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Prevalence , Germany/epidemiology , Wastewater-Based Epidemiological MonitoringABSTRACT
In Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, a system of three data sources has been established to track the Covid-19 pandemic. These sources are the number of Covid-19-related hospitalizations, the Covid-19 genecopies in wastewater, and the prevalence derived from a cohort study. This paper presents an extensive comparison of these parameters. It is investigated whether wastewater data and a cohort study can be valid surrogate parameters for the number of hospitalizations and thus serve as predictors for coming Covid-19 waves. We observe that this is possible in general for the cohort study prevalence, while the wastewater data suffer from a too large variability to make quantitative predictions by a purely data-driven approach. However, the wastewater data and the cohort study prevalence are able to detect hospitalizations waves in a qualitative manner. Furthermore, a detailed comparison of different normalization techniques of wastewater data is provided.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2 , Wastewater , COVID-19/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Wastewater/virology , Cohort Studies , Pandemics , Prevalence , Information SourcesABSTRACT
Background: Short-term forecasts of infectious disease burden can contribute to situational awareness and aid capacity planning. Based on best practice in other fields and recent insights in infectious disease epidemiology, one can maximise the predictive performance of such forecasts if multiple models are combined into an ensemble. Here, we report on the performance of ensembles in predicting COVID-19 cases and deaths across Europe between 08 March 2021 and 07 March 2022. Methods: We used open-source tools to develop a public European COVID-19 Forecast Hub. We invited groups globally to contribute weekly forecasts for COVID-19 cases and deaths reported by a standardised source for 32 countries over the next 1-4 weeks. Teams submitted forecasts from March 2021 using standardised quantiles of the predictive distribution. Each week we created an ensemble forecast, where each predictive quantile was calculated as the equally-weighted average (initially the mean and then from 26th July the median) of all individual models' predictive quantiles. We measured the performance of each model using the relative Weighted Interval Score (WIS), comparing models' forecast accuracy relative to all other models. We retrospectively explored alternative methods for ensemble forecasts, including weighted averages based on models' past predictive performance. Results: Over 52 weeks, we collected forecasts from 48 unique models. We evaluated 29 models' forecast scores in comparison to the ensemble model. We found a weekly ensemble had a consistently strong performance across countries over time. Across all horizons and locations, the ensemble performed better on relative WIS than 83% of participating models' forecasts of incident cases (with a total N=886 predictions from 23 unique models), and 91% of participating models' forecasts of deaths (N=763 predictions from 20 models). Across a 1-4 week time horizon, ensemble performance declined with longer forecast periods when forecasting cases, but remained stable over 4 weeks for incident death forecasts. In every forecast across 32 countries, the ensemble outperformed most contributing models when forecasting either cases or deaths, frequently outperforming all of its individual component models. Among several choices of ensemble methods we found that the most influential and best choice was to use a median average of models instead of using the mean, regardless of methods of weighting component forecast models. Conclusions: Our results support the use of combining forecasts from individual models into an ensemble in order to improve predictive performance across epidemiological targets and populations during infectious disease epidemics. Our findings further suggest that median ensemble methods yield better predictive performance more than ones based on means. Our findings also highlight that forecast consumers should place more weight on incident death forecasts than incident case forecasts at forecast horizons greater than 2 weeks. Funding: AA, BH, BL, LWa, MMa, PP, SV funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant 1R01GM109718, NSF BIG DATA Grant IIS-1633028, NSF Grant No.: OAC-1916805, NSF Expeditions in Computing Grant CCF-1918656, CCF-1917819, NSF RAPID CNS-2028004, NSF RAPID OAC-2027541, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 75D30119C05935, a grant from Google, University of Virginia Strategic Investment Fund award number SIF160, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under Contract No. HDTRA1-19-D-0007, and respectively Virginia Dept of Health Grant VDH-21-501-0141, VDH-21-501-0143, VDH-21-501-0147, VDH-21-501-0145, VDH-21-501-0146, VDH-21-501-0142, VDH-21-501-0148. AF, AMa, GL funded by SMIGE - Modelli statistici inferenziali per governare l'epidemia, FISR 2020-Covid-19 I Fase, FISR2020IP-00156, Codice Progetto: PRJ-0695. AM, BK, FD, FR, JK, JN, JZ, KN, MG, MR, MS, RB funded by Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland with grant 28/WFSN/2021 to the University of Warsaw. BRe, CPe, JLAz funded by Ministerio de Sanidad/ISCIII. BT, PG funded by PERISCOPE European H2020 project, contract number 101016233. CP, DL, EA, MC, SA funded by European Commission - Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology through the contract LC-01485746, and Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades and FEDER, with the project PGC2018-095456-B-I00. DE., MGu funded by Spanish Ministry of Health / REACT-UE (FEDER). DO, GF, IMi, LC funded by Laboratory Directed Research and Development program of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) under project number 20200700ER. DS, ELR, GG, NGR, NW, YW funded by National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119582; the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIGMS or the National Institutes of Health). FB, FP funded by InPresa, Lombardy Region, Italy. HG, KS funded by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. IV funded by Agencia de Qualitat i Avaluacio Sanitaries de Catalunya (AQuAS) through contract 2021-021OE. JDe, SMo, VP funded by Netzwerk Universitatsmedizin (NUM) project egePan (01KX2021). JPB, SH, TH funded by Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant 05M18SIA). KH, MSc, YKh funded by Project SaxoCOV, funded by the German Free State of Saxony. Presentation of data, model results and simulations also funded by the NFDI4Health Task Force COVID-19 (https://www.nfdi4health.de/task-force-covid-19-2) within the framework of a DFG-project (LO-342/17-1). LP, VE funded by Mathematical and Statistical modelling project (MUNI/A/1615/2020), Online platform for real-time monitoring, analysis and management of epidemic situations (MUNI/11/02202001/2020); VE also supported by RECETOX research infrastructure (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic: LM2018121), the CETOCOEN EXCELLENCE (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17-043/0009632), RECETOX RI project (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16-013/0001761). NIB funded by Health Protection Research Unit (grant code NIHR200908). SAb, SF funded by Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Epidemics , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Forecasting , Models, Statistical , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a strong interest in forecasts of the short-term development of epidemiological indicators to inform decision makers. In this study we evaluate probabilistic real-time predictions of confirmed cases and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland for the period from January through April 2021. METHODS: We evaluate probabilistic real-time predictions of confirmed cases and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland. These were issued by 15 different forecasting models, run by independent research teams. Moreover, we study the performance of combined ensemble forecasts. Evaluation of probabilistic forecasts is based on proper scoring rules, along with interval coverage proportions to assess calibration. The presented work is part of a pre-registered evaluation study. RESULTS: We find that many, though not all, models outperform a simple baseline model up to four weeks ahead for the considered targets. Ensemble methods show very good relative performance. The addressed time period is characterized by rather stable non-pharmaceutical interventions in both countries, making short-term predictions more straightforward than in previous periods. However, major trend changes in reported cases, like the rebound in cases due to the rise of the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant in March 2021, prove challenging to predict. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-model approaches can help to improve the performance of epidemiological forecasts. However, while death numbers can be predicted with some success based on current case and hospitalization data, predictability of case numbers remains low beyond quite short time horizons. Additional data sources including sequencing and mobility data, which were not extensively used in the present study, may help to improve performance.
We compare forecasts of weekly case and death numbers for COVID-19 in Germany and Poland based on 15 different modelling approaches. These cover the period from January to April 2021 and address numbers of cases and deaths one and two weeks into the future, along with the respective uncertainties. We find that combining different forecasts into one forecast can enable better predictions. However, case numbers over longer periods were challenging to predict. Additional data sources, such as information about different versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus present in the population, might improve forecasts in the future.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The healthcare sector poses many strategic, tactic and operational planning questions. Due to the historically grown structures, planning is often locally confined and much optimization potential is foregone. METHODS: We implemented optimized decision-support systems for ambulatory care for four different real-world case studies that cover a variety of aspects in terms of planning scope and decision support tools. All are based on interactive cartographic representations and are being developed in cooperation with domain experts. The planning problems that we present are the problem of positioning centers for vaccination against Covid-19 (strategical) and emergency doctors (strategical/tactical), the out-of-hours pharmacy planning problem (tactical), and the route planning of patient transport services (operational). For each problem, we describe the planning question, give an overview of the mathematical model and present the implemented decision support application. RESULTS: Mathematical optimization can be used to model and solve these planning problems. However, in order to convince decision-makers of an alternative solution structure, mathematical solutions must be comprehensible and tangible. Appealing and interactive decision-support tools can be used in practice to convince public health experts of the benefits of an alternative solution. The more strategic the problem and the less sensitive the data, the easier it is to put a tool into practice. CONCLUSIONS: Exploring solutions interactively is rarely supported in existing planning tools. However, in order to bring new innovative tools into productive use, many hurdles must be overcome.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Pandemics/prevention & control , Public HealthABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vaccines are an important tool to limit the health and economic damage of the Covid-19 pandemic. Several vaccine candidates already provided promising effectiveness data, but it is crucial for an effective vaccination campaign that people are willing and able to get vaccinated as soon as possible. Taking Germany as an example, we provide insights of using a mathematical approach for the planning and location of vaccination sites to optimally administer vaccines against Covid-19. METHODS: We used mathematical programming for computing an optimal selection of vaccination sites out of a given set (i.e., university hospitals, health department related locations and general practices). Different patient-to-facility assignments and doctor-to-facility assignments and different constraints on the number of vaccinees per site or maximum travel time are used. RESULTS: In order to minimize the barriers for people to get vaccinated, i.e., limit the one-way travel journey (airline distance) by around 35 km for 75% of the population (with a maximum of 70 km), around 80 well-positioned facilities can be enough. If only the 38 university hospitals are being used, the 75% distance increases to around 50 km (with a maximum of 145 km). Using all 400 health departments or all 56 000 general practices can decrease the journey length significantly, but comes at the price of more required staff and possibly wastage of only partially used vaccine containers. CONCLUSIONS: In the case of free assignments, the number of required physicians can in most scenarios be limited to 2 000, which is also the minimum with our assumptions. However, when travel distances for the patients are to be minimized, capacities of the facilities must be respected, or administrative assignments are prespecified, an increased number of physicians is unavoidable.