Combined analyses of within-host SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics and information on past exposures to the virus in a human cohort identifies intrinsic differences of Omicron and Delta variants.

The emergence of successive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs) during 2020 to 2022, each exhibiting increased epidemic growth relative to earlier circulating variants, has created a need to understand the drivers of such growth. However, both pathogen biology and changing host characteristics-such as varying levels of immunity-can combine to influence replication and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within and between hosts. Disentangling the role of variant and host in individual-level viral shedding of VOCs is essential to inform Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) planning and response and interpret past epidemic trends. Using data from a prospective observational cohort study of healthy adult volunteers undergoing weekly occupational health PCR screening, we developed a Bayesian hierarchical model to reconstruct individual-level viral kinetics and estimate how different factors shaped viral dynamics, measured by PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values over time. Jointly accounting for both interindividual variation in Ct values and complex host characteristics-such as vaccination status, exposure history, and age-we found that age and number of prior exposures had a strong influence on peak viral replication. Older individuals and those who had at least 5 prior antigen exposures to vaccination and/or infection typically had much lower levels of shedding. Moreover, we found evidence of a correlation between the speed of early shedding and duration of incubation period when comparing different VOCs and age groups. Our findings illustrate the value of linking information on participant characteristics, symptom profile and infecting variant with prospective PCR sampling, and the importance of accounting for increasingly complex population exposure landscapes when analysing the viral kinetics of VOCs. Trial Registration: The Legacy study is a prospective observational cohort study of healthy adult volunteers undergoing weekly occupational health PCR screening for SARS-CoV-2 at University College London Hospitals or at the Francis Crick Institute (NCT04750356) (22,23). The Legacy study was approved by London Camden and Kings Cross Health Research Authority Research and Ethics committee (IRAS number 286469). The Legacy study was approved by London Camden and Kings Cross Health Research Authority Research and Ethics committee (IRAS number 286469) and is sponsored by University College London Hospitals. Written consent was given by all participants.

Inferring the differences in incubation-period and generation-interval distributions of the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Estimating the differences in the incubation-period, serial-interval, and generation-interval distributions of SARS-CoV-2 variants is critical to understanding their transmission. However, the impact of epidemic dynamics is often neglected in estimating the timing of infection-for example, when an epidemic is growing exponentially, a cohort of infected individuals who developed symptoms at the same time are more likely to have been infected recently. Here, we reanalyze incubation-period and serial-interval data describing transmissions of the Delta and Omicron variants from the Netherlands at the end of December 2021. Previous analysis of the same dataset reported shorter mean observed incubation period (3.2 d vs. 4.4 d) and serial interval (3.5 d vs. 4.1 d) for the Omicron variant, but the number of infections caused by the Delta variant decreased during this period as the number of Omicron infections increased. When we account for growth-rate differences of two variants during the study period, we estimate similar mean incubation periods (3.8 to 4.5 d) for both variants but a shorter mean generation interval for the Omicron variant (3.0 d; 95% CI: 2.7 to 3.2 d) than for the Delta variant (3.8 d; 95% CI: 3.7 to 4.0 d). The differences in estimated generation intervals may be driven by the "network effect"-higher effective transmissibility of the Omicron variant can cause faster susceptible depletion among contact networks, which in turn prevents late transmission (therefore shortening realized generation intervals). Using up-to-date generation-interval distributions is critical to accurately estimating the reproduction advantage of the Omicron variant.

Generative Bayesian modeling to nowcast the effective reproduction number from line list data with missing symptom onset dates.

The time-varying effective reproduction number Rt is a widely used indicator of transmission dynamics during infectious disease outbreaks. Timely estimates of Rt can be obtained from reported cases counted by their date of symptom onset, which is generally closer to the time of infection than the date of report. Case counts by date of symptom onset are typically obtained from line list data, however these data can have missing information and are subject to right truncation. Previous methods have addressed these problems independently by first imputing missing onset dates, then adjusting truncated case counts, and finally estimating the effective reproduction number. This stepwise approach makes it difficult to propagate uncertainty and can introduce subtle biases during real-time estimation due to the continued impact of assumptions made in previous steps. In this work, we integrate imputation, truncation adjustment, and Rt estimation into a single generative Bayesian model, allowing direct joint inference of case counts and Rt from line list data with missing symptom onset dates. We then use this framework to compare the performance of nowcasting approaches with different stepwise and generative components on synthetic line list data for multiple outbreak scenarios and across different epidemic phases. We find that under reporting delays realistic for hospitalization data (50% of reports delayed by more than a week), intermediate smoothing, as is common practice in stepwise approaches, can bias nowcasts of case counts and Rt, which is avoided in a joint generative approach due to shared regularization of all model components. On incomplete line list data, a fully generative approach enables the quantification of uncertainty due to missing onset dates without the need for an initial multiple imputation step. In a real-world comparison using hospitalization line list data from the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland, we observe the same qualitative differences between approaches. The generative modeling components developed in this work have been integrated and further extended in the R package epinowcast, providing a flexible and interpretable tool for real-time surveillance.

Best practices for estimating and reporting epidemiological delay distributions of infectious diseases.

Epidemiological delays are key quantities that inform public health policy and clinical practice. They are used as inputs for mathematical and statistical models, which in turn can guide control strategies. In recent work, we found that censoring, right truncation, and dynamical bias were rarely addressed correctly when estimating delays and that these biases were large enough to have knock-on impacts across a large number of use cases. Here, we formulate a checklist of best practices for estimating and reporting epidemiological delays. We also provide a flowchart to guide practitioners based on their data. Our examples are focused on the incubation period and serial interval due to their importance in outbreak response and modeling, but our recommendations are applicable to other delays. The recommendations, which are based on the literature and our experience estimating epidemiological delay distributions during outbreak responses, can help improve the robustness and utility of reported estimates and provide guidance for the evaluation of estimates for downstream use in transmission models or other analyses.

Accumulation of Immunity in Heavy-Tailed Sexual Contact Networks Shapes Mpox Outbreak Sizes.

Many countries affected by the global outbreak of mpox in 2022 have observed a decline in cases. Our mathematical model accounting for heavy-tailed sexual partnership distributions suggests that mpox epidemics can hit the infection-derived herd immunity threshold and begin to decline, with <1% of sexually active men who have sex with men infected regardless of interventions or behavioral changes. We consistently found that many countries and US states experienced an epidemic peak, with cumulative cases of around 0.1% to 0.5% among men who have sex with men. The observed decline in cases may not necessarily be attributable to interventions or behavioral changes primarily.

Evaluating the use of social contact data to produce age-specific short-term forecasts of SARS-CoV-2 incidence in England.

Mathematical and statistical models can be used to make predictions of how epidemics may progress in the near future and form a central part of outbreak mitigation and control. Renewal equation based models allow inference of epidemiological parameters from historical data and forecast future epidemic dynamics without requiring complex mechanistic assumptions. However, these models typically ignore interaction between age groups, partly due to challenges in parameterising a time varying interaction matrix. Social contact data collected regularly during the COVID-19 epidemic provide a means to inform interaction between age groups in real-time. We developed an age-specific forecasting framework and applied it to two age-stratified time-series: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, estimated from a national infection and antibody prevalence survey; and, reported cases according to the UK national COVID-19 dashboard. Jointly fitting our model to social contact data from the CoMix study, we inferred a time-varying next generation matrix which we used to project infections and cases in the four weeks following each of 29 forecast dates between October 2020 and November 2021. We evaluated the forecasts using proper scoring rules and compared performance with three other models with alternative data and specifications alongside two naive baseline models. Overall, incorporating age interaction improved forecasts of infections and the CoMix-data-informed model was the best performing model at time horizons between two and four weeks. However, this was not true when forecasting cases. We found that age group interaction was most important for predicting cases in children and older adults. The contact-data-informed models performed best during the winter months of 2020-2021, but performed comparatively poorly in other periods. We highlight challenges regarding the incorporation of contact data in forecasting and offer proposals as to how to extend and adapt our approach, which may lead to more successful forecasts in future.

Scoring epidemiological forecasts on transformed scales.

Forecast evaluation is essential for the development of predictive epidemic models and can inform their use for public health decision-making. Common scores to evaluate epidemiological forecasts are the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS) and the Weighted Interval Score (WIS), which can be seen as measures of the absolute distance between the forecast distribution and the observation. However, applying these scores directly to predicted and observed incidence counts may not be the most appropriate due to the exponential nature of epidemic processes and the varying magnitudes of observed values across space and time. In this paper, we argue that transforming counts before applying scores such as the CRPS or WIS can effectively mitigate these difficulties and yield epidemiologically meaningful and easily interpretable results. Using the CRPS on log-transformed values as an example, we list three attractive properties: Firstly, it can be interpreted as a probabilistic version of a relative error. Secondly, it reflects how well models predicted the time-varying epidemic growth rate. And lastly, using arguments on variance-stabilizing transformations, it can be shown that under the assumption of a quadratic mean-variance relationship, the logarithmic transformation leads to expected CRPS values which are independent of the order of magnitude of the predicted quantity. Applying a transformation of log(x + 1) to data and forecasts from the European COVID-19 Forecast Hub, we find that it changes model rankings regardless of stratification by forecast date, location or target types. Situations in which models missed the beginning of upward swings are more strongly emphasised while failing to predict a downturn following a peak is less severely penalised when scoring transformed forecasts as opposed to untransformed ones. We conclude that appropriate transformations, of which the natural logarithm is only one particularly attractive option, should be considered when assessing the performance of different models in the context of infectious disease incidence.

Nowcasting the 2022 mpox outbreak in England.

In May 2022, a cluster of mpox cases were detected in the UK that could not be traced to recent travel history from an endemic region. Over the coming months, the outbreak grew, with over 3000 total cases reported in the UK, and similar outbreaks occurring worldwide. These outbreaks appeared linked to sexual contact networks between gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, local health systems were strained, and therefore effective surveillance for mpox was essential for managing public health policy. However, the mpox outbreak in the UK was characterised by substantial delays in the reporting of the symptom onset date and specimen collection date for confirmed positive cases. These delays led to substantial backfilling in the epidemic curve, making it challenging to interpret the epidemic trajectory in real-time. Many nowcasting models exist to tackle this challenge in epidemiological data, but these lacked sufficient flexibility. We have developed a nowcasting model using generalised additive models that makes novel use of individual-level patient data to correct the mpox epidemic curve in England. The aim of this model is to correct for backfilling in the epidemic curve and provide real-time characteristics of the state of the epidemic, including the real-time growth rate. This model benefited from close collaboration with individuals involved in collecting and processing the data, enabling temporal changes in the reporting structure to be built into the model, which improved the robustness of the nowcasts generated. The resulting model accurately captured the true shape of the epidemic curve in real time.

Collaborative nowcasting of COVID-19 hospitalization incidences in Germany.

Real-time surveillance is a crucial element in the response to infectious disease outbreaks. However, the interpretation of incidence data is often hampered by delays occurring at various stages of data gathering and reporting. As a result, recent values are biased downward, which obscures current trends. Statistical nowcasting techniques can be employed to correct these biases, allowing for accurate characterization of recent developments and thus enhancing situational awareness. In this paper, we present a preregistered real-time assessment of eight nowcasting approaches, applied by independent research teams to German 7-day hospitalization incidences during the COVID-19 pandemic. This indicator played an important role in the management of the outbreak in Germany and was linked to levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions via certain thresholds. Due to its definition, in which hospitalization counts are aggregated by the date of case report rather than admission, German hospitalization incidences are particularly affected by delays and can take several weeks or months to fully stabilize. For this study, all methods were applied from 22 November 2021 to 29 April 2022, with probabilistic nowcasts produced each day for the current and 28 preceding days. Nowcasts at the national, state, and age-group levels were collected in the form of quantiles in a public repository and displayed in a dashboard. Moreover, a mean and a median ensemble nowcast were generated. We find that overall, the compared methods were able to remove a large part of the biases introduced by delays. Most participating teams underestimated the importance of very long delays, though, resulting in nowcasts with a slight downward bias. The accompanying prediction intervals were also too narrow for almost all methods. Averaged over all nowcast horizons, the best performance was achieved by a model using case incidences as a covariate and taking into account longer delays than the other approaches. For the most recent days, which are often considered the most relevant in practice, a mean ensemble of the submitted nowcasts performed best. We conclude by providing some lessons learned on the definition of nowcasting targets and practical challenges.

Why are different estimates of the effective reproductive number so different? A case study on COVID-19 in Germany.

The effective reproductive number Rt has taken a central role in the scientific, political, and public discussion during the COVID-19 pandemic, with numerous real-time estimates of this quantity routinely published. Disagreement between estimates can be substantial and may lead to confusion among decision-makers and the general public. In this work, we compare different estimates of the national-level effective reproductive number of COVID-19 in Germany in 2020 and 2021. We consider the agreement between estimates from the same method but published at different time points (within-method agreement) as well as retrospective agreement across eight different approaches (between-method agreement). Concerning the former, estimates from some methods are very stable over time and hardly subject to revisions, while others display considerable fluctuations. To evaluate between-method agreement, we reproduce the estimates generated by different groups using a variety of statistical approaches, standardizing analytical choices to assess how they contribute to the observed disagreement. These analytical choices include the data source, data pre-processing, assumed generation time distribution, statistical tuning parameters, and various delay distributions. We find that in practice, these auxiliary choices in the estimation of Rt may affect results at least as strongly as the selection of the statistical approach. They should thus be communicated transparently along with the estimates.

Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated partial vaccine escape and high transmissibility, with early studies indicating lower severity of infection than that of the delta variant (B.1.617.2). We aimed to better characterise omicron severity relative to delta by assessing the relative risk of hospital attendance, hospital admission, or death in a large national cohort. METHODS: Individual-level data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases resident in England between Nov 29, 2021, and Jan 9, 2022, were linked to routine datasets on vaccination status, hospital attendance and admission, and mortality. The relative risk of hospital attendance or admission within 14 days, or death within 28 days after confirmed infection, was estimated using proportional hazards regression. Analyses were stratified by test date, 10-year age band, ethnicity, residential region, and vaccination status, and were further adjusted for sex, index of multiple deprivation decile, evidence of a previous infection, and year of age within each age band. A secondary analysis estimated variant-specific and vaccine-specific vaccine effectiveness and the intrinsic relative severity of omicron infection compared with delta (ie, the relative risk in unvaccinated cases). FINDINGS: The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of hospital attendance (not necessarily resulting in admission) with omicron compared with delta was 0·56 (95% CI 0·54-0·58); for hospital admission and death, HR estimates were 0·41 (0·39-0·43) and 0·31 (0·26-0·37), respectively. Omicron versus delta HR estimates varied with age for all endpoints examined. The adjusted HR for hospital admission was 1·10 (0·85-1·42) in those younger than 10 years, decreasing to 0·25 (0·21-0·30) in 60-69-year-olds, and then increasing to 0·47 (0·40-0·56) in those aged at least 80 years. For both variants, past infection gave some protection against death both in vaccinated (HR 0·47 [0·32-0·68]) and unvaccinated (0·18 [0·06-0·57]) cases. In vaccinated cases, past infection offered no additional protection against hospital admission beyond that provided by vaccination (HR 0·96 [0·88-1·04]); however, for unvaccinated cases, past infection gave moderate protection (HR 0·55 [0·48-0·63]). Omicron versus delta HR estimates were lower for hospital admission (0·30 [0·28-0·32]) in unvaccinated cases than the corresponding HR estimated for all cases in the primary analysis. Booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine was highly protective against hospitalisation and death in omicron cases (HR for hospital admission 8-11 weeks post-booster vs unvaccinated: 0·22 [0·20-0·24]), with the protection afforded after a booster not being affected by the vaccine used for doses 1 and 2. INTERPRETATION: The risk of severe outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially lower for omicron than for delta, with higher reductions for more severe endpoints and significant variation with age. Underlying the observed risks is a larger reduction in intrinsic severity (in unvaccinated individuals) counterbalanced by a reduction in vaccine effectiveness. Documented previous SARS-CoV-2 infection offered some protection against hospitalisation and high protection against death in unvaccinated individuals, but only offered additional protection in vaccinated individuals for the death endpoint. Booster vaccination with mRNA vaccines maintains over 70% protection against hospitalisation and death in breakthrough confirmed omicron infections. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research, Community Jameel, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Comparing human and model-based forecasts of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland.

Forecasts based on epidemiological modelling have played an important role in shaping public policy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This modelling combines knowledge about infectious disease dynamics with the subjective opinion of the researcher who develops and refines the model and often also adjusts model outputs. Developing a forecast model is difficult, resource- and time-consuming. It is therefore worth asking what modelling is able to add beyond the subjective opinion of the researcher alone. To investigate this, we analysed different real-time forecasts of cases of and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland over a 1-4 week horizon submitted to the German and Polish Forecast Hub. We compared crowd forecasts elicited from researchers and volunteers, against a) forecasts from two semi-mechanistic models based on common epidemiological assumptions and b) the ensemble of all other models submitted to the Forecast Hub. We found crowd forecasts, despite being overconfident, to outperform all other methods across all forecast horizons when forecasting cases (weighted interval score relative to the Hub ensemble 2 weeks ahead: 0.89). Forecasts based on computational models performed comparably better when predicting deaths (rel. WIS 1.26), suggesting that epidemiological modelling and human judgement can complement each other in important ways.

Comparative assessment of methods for short-term forecasts of COVID-19 hospital admissions in England at the local level.

BACKGROUND: Forecasting healthcare demand is essential in epidemic settings, both to inform situational awareness and facilitate resource planning. Ideally, forecasts should be robust across time and locations. During the COVID-19 pandemic in England, it is an ongoing concern that demand for hospital care for COVID-19 patients in England will exceed available resources. METHODS: We made weekly forecasts of daily COVID-19 hospital admissions for National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England between August 2020 and April 2021 using three disease-agnostic forecasting models: a mean ensemble of autoregressive time series models, a linear regression model with 7-day-lagged local cases as a predictor, and a scaled convolution of local cases and a delay distribution. We compared their point and probabilistic accuracy to a mean-ensemble of them all and to a simple baseline model of no change from the last day of admissions. We measured predictive performance using the weighted interval score (WIS) and considered how this changed in different scenarios (the length of the predictive horizon, the date on which the forecast was made, and by location), as well as how much admissions forecasts improved when future cases were known. RESULTS: All models outperformed the baseline in the majority of scenarios. Forecasting accuracy varied by forecast date and location, depending on the trajectory of the outbreak, and all individual models had instances where they were the top- or bottom-ranked model. Forecasts produced by the mean-ensemble were both the most accurate and most consistently accurate forecasts amongst all the models considered. Forecasting accuracy was improved when using future observed, rather than forecast, cases, especially at longer forecast horizons. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming no change in current admissions is rarely better than including at least a trend. Using confirmed COVID-19 cases as a predictor can improve admissions forecasts in some scenarios, but this is variable and depends on the ability to make consistently good case forecasts. However, ensemble forecasts can make forecasts that make consistently more accurate forecasts across time and locations. Given minimal requirements on data and computation, our admissions forecasting ensemble could be used to anticipate healthcare needs in future epidemic or pandemic settings.

Correction: Practical considerations for measuring the effective reproductive number, Rt.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008409.].

The local burden of disease during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in England: estimation using different data sources from changing surveillance practices.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 epidemic has differentially impacted communities across England, with regional variation in rates of confirmed cases, hospitalisations and deaths. Measurement of this burden changed substantially over the first months, as surveillance was expanded to accommodate the escalating epidemic. Laboratory confirmation was initially restricted to clinical need ("pillar 1") before expanding to community-wide symptomatics ("pillar 2"). This study aimed to ascertain whether inconsistent measurement of case data resulting from varying testing coverage could be reconciled by drawing inference from COVID-19-related deaths. METHODS: We fit a Bayesian spatio-temporal model to weekly COVID-19-related deaths per local authority (LTLA) throughout the first wave (1 January 2020-30 June 2020), adjusting for the local epidemic timing and the age, deprivation and ethnic composition of its population. We combined predictions from this model with case data under community-wide, symptomatic testing and infection prevalence estimates from the ONS infection survey, to infer the likely trajectory of infections implied by the deaths in each LTLA. RESULTS: A model including temporally- and spatially-correlated random effects was found to best accommodate the observed variation in COVID-19-related deaths, after accounting for local population characteristics. Predicted case counts under community-wide symptomatic testing suggest a total of 275,000-420,000 cases over the first wave - a median of over 100,000 additional to the total confirmed in practice under varying testing coverage. This translates to a peak incidence of around 200,000 total infections per week across England. The extent to which estimated total infections are reflected in confirmed case counts was found to vary substantially across LTLAs, ranging from 7% in Leicester to 96% in Gloucester with a median of 23%. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations in testing capacity biased the observed trajectory of COVID-19 infections throughout the first wave. Basing inference on COVID-19-related mortality and higher-coverage testing later in the time period, we could explore the extent of this bias more explicitly. Evidence points towards substantial under-representation of initial growth and peak magnitude of infections nationally, to which different parts of the country contribute unequally.

Unexposed populations and potential COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in European countries as per data up to 21 November 2021.

We estimate the potential remaining COVID-19 hospitalisation and death burdens in 19 European countries by estimating the proportion of each country's population that has acquired immunity to severe disease through infection or vaccination. Our results suggest many European countries could still face high burdens of hospitalisations and deaths, particularly those with lower vaccination coverage, less historical transmission and/or older populations. Continued non-pharmaceutical interventions and efforts to achieve high vaccination coverage are required in these countries to limit severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Invasive versus non-invasive management of older patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (SENIOR-NSTEMI): a cohort study based on routine clinical data.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials suggest lower long-term risk of mortality after invasive rather than non-invasive management of patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), but the trials excluded very elderly patients. We aimed to estimate the effect of invasive versus non-invasive management within 3 days of peak troponin concentration on the survival of patients aged 80 years or older with NSTEMI. METHODS: Routine clinical data for this study were obtained from five collaborating hospitals hosting NIHR Biomedical Research Centres in the UK (all tertiary centres with emergency departments). Eligible patients were 80 years old or older when they underwent troponin measurements and were diagnosed with NSTEMI between 2010 (2008 for University College Hospital) and 2017. Propensity scores (patients' estimated probability of receiving invasive management) based on pretreatment variables were derived using logistic regression; patients with high probabilities of non-invasive or invasive management were excluded. Patients who died within 3 days of peak troponin concentration without receiving invasive management were assigned to the invasive or non-invasive management groups based on their propensity scores, to mitigate immortal time bias. We estimated mortality hazard ratios comparing invasive with non-invasive management, and compared the rate of hospital admissions for heart failure. FINDINGS: Of the 1976 patients with NSTEMI, 101 died within 3 days of their peak troponin concentration and 375 were excluded because of extreme propensity scores. The remaining 1500 patients had a median age of 86 (IQR 82-89) years of whom (845 [56%] received non-invasive management. During median follow-up of 3·0 (IQR 1·2-4·8) years, 613 (41%) patients died. The adjusted cumulative 5-year mortality was 36% in the invasive management group and 55% in the non-invasive management group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·68, 95% CI 0·55-0·84). Invasive management was associated with lower incidence of hospital admissions for heart failure (adjusted rate ratio compared with non-invasive management 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·93). INTERPRETATION: The survival advantage of invasive compared with non-invasive management appears to extend to patients with NSTEMI who are aged 80 years or older. FUNDING: NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, as part of the NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative.

Practical considerations for measuring the effective reproductive number, Rt.

Estimation of the effective reproductive number Rt is important for detecting changes in disease transmission over time. During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, policy makers and public health officials are using Rt to assess the effectiveness of interventions and to inform policy. However, estimation of Rt from available data presents several challenges, with critical implications for the interpretation of the course of the pandemic. The purpose of this document is to summarize these challenges, illustrate them with examples from synthetic data, and, where possible, make recommendations. For near real-time estimation of Rt, we recommend the approach of Cori and colleagues, which uses data from before time t and empirical estimates of the distribution of time between infections. Methods that require data from after time t, such as Wallinga and Teunis, are conceptually and methodologically less suited for near real-time estimation, but may be appropriate for retrospective analyses of how individuals infected at different time points contributed to the spread. We advise caution when using methods derived from the approach of Bettencourt and Ribeiro, as the resulting Rt estimates may be biased if the underlying structural assumptions are not met. Two key challenges common to all approaches are accurate specification of the generation interval and reconstruction of the time series of new infections from observations occurring long after the moment of transmission. Naive approaches for dealing with observation delays, such as subtracting delays sampled from a distribution, can introduce bias. We provide suggestions for how to mitigate this and other technical challenges and highlight open problems in Rt estimation.

Reconstructing the early global dynamics of under-ascertained COVID-19 cases and infections.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic or subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infections are often unreported, which means that confirmed case counts may not accurately reflect underlying epidemic dynamics. Understanding the level of ascertainment (the ratio of confirmed symptomatic cases to the true number of symptomatic individuals) and undetected epidemic progression is crucial to informing COVID-19 response planning, including the introduction and relaxation of control measures. Estimating case ascertainment over time allows for accurate estimates of specific outcomes such as seroprevalence, which is essential for planning control measures. METHODS: Using reported data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities globally, we estimated the proportion of symptomatic cases (i.e. any person with any of fever ≥ 37.5 °C, cough, shortness of breath, sudden onset of anosmia, ageusia or dysgeusia illness) that were reported in 210 countries and territories, given those countries had experienced more than ten deaths. We used published estimates of the baseline case fatality ratio (CFR), which was adjusted for delays and under-ascertainment, then calculated the ratio of this baseline CFR to an estimated local delay-adjusted CFR to estimate the level of under-ascertainment in a particular location. We then fit a Bayesian Gaussian process model to estimate the temporal pattern of under-ascertainment. RESULTS: Based on reported cases and deaths, we estimated that, during March 2020, the median percentage of symptomatic cases detected across the 84 countries which experienced more than ten deaths ranged from 2.4% (Bangladesh) to 100% (Chile). Across the ten countries with the highest number of total confirmed cases as of 6 July 2020, we estimated that the peak number of symptomatic cases ranged from 1.4 times (Chile) to 18 times (France) larger than reported. Comparing our model with national and regional seroprevalence data where available, we find that our estimates are consistent with observed values. Finally, we estimated seroprevalence for each country. As of 7 June, our seroprevalence estimates range from 0% (many countries) to 13% (95% CrI 5.6-24%) (Belgium). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial under-ascertainment of symptomatic cases, particularly at the peak of the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in many countries. Reported case counts will therefore likely underestimate the rate of outbreak growth initially and underestimate the decline in the later stages of an epidemic. Although there was considerable under-reporting in many locations, our estimates were consistent with emerging serological data, suggesting that the proportion of each country's population infected with SARS-CoV-2 worldwide is generally low.

Estimating number of cases and spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) using critical care admissions, United Kingdom, February to March 2020.

An exponential growth model was fitted to critical care admissions from two surveillance databases to determine likely coronavirus disease (COVID-19) case numbers, critical care admissions and epidemic growth in the United Kingdom before the national lockdown. We estimate, on 23 March, a median of 114,000 (95% credible interval (CrI): 78,000-173,000) new cases and 258 (95% CrI: 220-319) new critical care reports, with 527,000 (95% CrI: 362,000-797,000) cumulative cases since 16 February.