A modeling framework for the analysis of the SARS-CoV2 transmission dynamics.

Despite the progress in medical data collection the actual burden of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown due to under-ascertainment of cases. This was apparent in the acute phase of the pandemic and the use of reported deaths has been pointed out as a more reliable source of information, likely less prone to under-reporting. Since daily deaths occur from past infections weighted by their probability of death, one may infer the total number of infections accounting for their age distribution, using the data on reported deaths. We adopt this framework and assume that the dynamics generating the total number of infections can be described by a continuous time transmission model expressed through a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations where the transmission rate is modeled as a diffusion process allowing to reveal both the effect of control strategies and the changes in individuals behavior. We develop this flexible Bayesian tool in Stan and study 3 pairs of European countries, estimating the time-varying reproduction number ( R t $$ {R}_t $$ ) as well as the true cumulative number of infected individuals. As we estimate the true number of infections we offer a more accurate estimate of R t $$ {R}_t $$ . We also provide an estimate of the daily reporting ratio and discuss the effects of changes in mobility and testing on the inferred quantities.

Syndromic case definitions for lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) are less sensitive in older age: an analysis of symptoms among hospitalised adults.

BACKGROUND: Lower Respiratory Tract Infections (LRTI) pose a serious threat to older adults but may be underdiagnosed due to atypical presentations. Here we assess LRTI symptom profiles and syndromic (symptom-based) case ascertainment in older (≥ 65y) as compared to younger adults (< 65y). METHODS: We included adults (≥ 18y) with confirmed LRTI admitted to two acute care Trusts in Bristol, UK from 1st August 2020- 31st July 2022. Logistic regression was used to assess whether age ≥ 65y reduced the probability of meeting syndromic LRTI case definitions, using patients' symptoms at admission. We also calculated relative symptom frequencies (log-odds ratios) and evaluated how symptoms were clustered across different age groups. RESULTS: Of 17,620 clinically confirmed LRTI cases, 8,487 (48.1%) had symptoms meeting the case definition. Compared to those not meeting the definition these cases were younger, had less severe illness and were less likely to have received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or to have active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Prevalence of dementia/cognitive impairment and levels of comorbidity were lower in this group. After controlling for sex, dementia and comorbidities, age ≥ 65y significantly reduced the probability of meeting the case definition (aOR = 0.67, 95% CI:0.63-0.71). Cases aged ≥ 65y were less likely to present with fever and LRTI-specific symptoms (e.g., pleurisy, sputum) than younger cases, and those aged ≥ 85y were characterised by lack of cough but frequent confusion and falls. CONCLUSIONS: LRTI symptom profiles changed considerably with age in this hospitalised cohort. Standard screening protocols may fail to detect older and frailer cases of LRTI based on their symptoms.

Combined multiplex panel test results are a poor estimate of disease prevalence without adjustment for test error.

Multiplex panel tests identify many individual pathogens at once, using a set of component tests. In some panels the number of components can be large. If the panel is detecting causative pathogens for a single syndrome or disease then we might estimate the burden of that disease by combining the results of the panel, for example determining the prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia as caused by many individual pneumococcal serotypes. When we are dealing with multiplex test panels with many components, test error in the individual components of a panel, even when present at very low levels, can cause significant overall error. Uncertainty in the sensitivity and specificity of the individual tests, and statistical fluctuations in the numbers of false positives and false negatives, will cause large uncertainty in the combined estimates of disease prevalence. In many cases this can be a source of significant bias. In this paper we develop a mathematical framework to characterise this issue, we determine expressions for the sensitivity and specificity of panel tests. In this we identify a counter-intuitive relationship between panel test sensitivity and disease prevalence that means panel tests become more sensitive as prevalence increases. We present novel statistical methods that adjust for bias and quantify uncertainty in prevalence estimates from panel tests, and use simulations to test these methods. As multiplex testing becomes more commonly used for screening in routine clinical practice, accumulation of test error due to the combination of large numbers of test results needs to be identified and corrected for.

Relative vaccine effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 boosters in people aged at least 75 years during the spring-summer (monovalent vaccine) and autumn-winter (bivalent vaccine) booster campaigns: a prospective test negative case-control study, United Kingdom, 2022.

BackgroundUnderstanding the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of new COVID-19 vaccine formulations against SARS-CoV-2 infection is a public health priority. A precise analysis of the rVE of monovalent and bivalent boosters given during the 2022 spring-summer and autumn-winter campaigns, respectively, in a defined population remains of interest.AimWe assessed rVE against hospitalisation for the spring-summer (fourth vs third monovalent mRNA vaccine doses) and autumn-winter (fifth BA.1/ancestral bivalent vs fourth monovalent mRNA vaccine dose) boosters.MethodsWe performed a prospective single-centre test-negative design case-control study in ≥ 75-year-old people hospitalised with COVID-19 or other acute respiratory disease. We conducted regression analyses controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, patient comorbidities, community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, vaccine brand and time between baseline dose and hospitalisation.ResultsWe included 682 controls and 182 cases in the spring-summer booster analysis and 572 controls and 152 cases in the autumn-winter booster analysis. A monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as fourth dose showed 46.6% rVE (95% confidence interval (CI): 13.9-67.1) vs those not fully boosted. A bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as fifth dose had 46.7% rVE (95% CI: 18.0-65.1), compared with a fourth monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose.ConclusionsBoth fourth monovalent and fifth BA.1/ancestral mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses demonstrated benefit as a booster in older adults. Bivalent mRNA boosters offered similar protection against hospitalisation with Omicron infection to monovalent mRNA boosters given earlier in the year. These findings support immunisation programmes in several European countries that advised the use of BA.1/ancestral bivalent booster doses.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in prevention of hospitalisations and severe disease in adults with SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant between June 2021 and July 2022: A prospective test negative case-control study.

Background: Whilst other studies have reported the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against hospitalisation, including emergency department or intensive care admission, few have assessed effectiveness against other more clinically robust indices of COVID-19 severity. Methods: A prospective single-centre test-negative design case-control study of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 disease or other acute respiratory disease between 1 June 2021 and 20 July 2022. We assessed VE (vaccine effectiveness) against hospitalisation, length of stay [LOS] >3 days, WHO COVID Score >5 and supplementary oxygen FiO2 (fraction inspired oxygen) >28%, conducting regression analyses controlling for age, gender, index of multiple deprivation, Charlson comorbidity index, time, and community infection prevalence. Findings: 935 controls and 546 cases were hospitalised during the Delta period, with 721 controls and 372 cases hospitalised during the Omicron study period. Two-dose BNT162b2 was associated with VE 82.5% [95% confidence interval 76.2%-87.2%] against hospitalisation following Delta infection, 63.3% [26.9-81.8%], 58.5% [24.8-77.3%], and 51.5% [16.7-72.1%] against LOS >3 days, WHO COVID Score >5, and requirement for FiO2 >28% respectively. Three-dose BNT162b2 protection against hospitalisation with Omicron infection was 30.9% [5.9-49.3%], with sensitivity analyses ranging from 28.8-72.6%. Protection against LOS >3 days, WHO COVID Score >5 and requirement for FiO2 >28% was 56.1% [20.6-76.5%], 58.8% [31.2-75.8%], and 41.5% [-0.4-66.3%], respectively. In the UK, BNT162b2 was prioritised for high-risk individuals and those aged >75 years. In the latter group we found a higher estimate of VE against hospitalisation of 47.2% [16.8-66.6%]. Interpretation: BNT162b2 vaccination results in risk reductions for hospitalisation and multiple patient outcomes following Delta and Omicron COVID-19 infection, particularly in older adults. BNT162b2 remains effective against severe SARS-CoV-2 disease. Funding: AvonCAP is an investigator-led project funded under a collaborative agreement by Pfizer.

Contemporary statistical inference for infectious disease models using Stan.

This paper is concerned with the application of recent statistical advances to inference of infectious disease dynamics. We describe the fitting of a class of epidemic models using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and variational inference as implemented in the freely available Stan software. We apply the two methods to real data from outbreaks as well as routinely collected observations. Our results suggest that both inference methods are computationally feasible in this context, and show a trade-off between statistical efficiency versus computational speed. The latter appears particularly relevant for real-time applications.