False negative rates of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 diagnostic tests, together with selection bias due to prioritized testing can result in inaccurate modeling of COVID‐19 transmission dynamics based on reported “case” counts. We propose an extension of the widely used Susceptible‐Exposed‐Infected‐Removed (SEIR) model that accounts for misclassification error and selection bias, and derive an analytic expression for the basic reproduction number as a function of false negative rates of the diagnostic tests and selection probabilities for getting tested. Analyzing data from the first two waves of the pandemic in India, we show that correcting for misclassification and selection leads to more accurate prediction in a test sample. We provide estimates of undetected infections and deaths between April 1, 2020 and August 31, 2021. At the end of the first wave in India, the estimated under‐reporting factor for cases was at 11.1 (95% CI: 10.7,11.5) and for deaths at 3.58 (95% CI: 3.5,3.66) as of February 1, 2021, while they change to 19.2 (95% CI: 17.9, 19.9) and 4.55 (95% CI: 4.32, 4.68) as of July 1, 2021. Equivalently, 9.0% (95% CI: 8.7%, 9.3%) and 5.2% (95% CI: 5.0%, 5.6%) of total estimated infections were reported on these two dates, while 27.9% (95% CI: 27.3%, 28.6%) and 22% (95% CI: 21.4%, 23.1%) of estimated total deaths were reported. Extensive simulation studies demonstrate the effect of misclassification and selection on estimation of and prediction of future infections. A R‐package
Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed (SEIR)-type epidemiologic models, modeling unascertained infections latently, can predict unreported cases and deaths assuming perfect testing. We apply a method we developed to account for the high false negative rates of diagnostic RT-PCR tests for detecting an active SARS-CoV-2 infection in a classic SEIR model. The number of unascertained cases and false negatives being unobservable in a real study, population-based serosurveys can help validate model projections. Applying our method to training data from Delhi, India, during March 15–June 30, 2020, we estimate the underreporting factor for cases at 34–53 (deaths: 8–13) on July 10, 2020, largely consistent with the findings of the first round of serosurveys for Delhi (done during June 27–July 10, 2020) with an estimated 22.86% IgG antibody prevalence, yielding estimated underreporting factors of 30–42 for cases. Together, these imply approximately 96–98% cases in Delhi remained unreported (July 10, 2020). Updated calculations using training data during March 15-December 31, 2020 yield estimated underreporting factor for cases at 13–22 (deaths: 3–7) on January 23, 2021, which are again consistent with the latest (fifth) round of serosurveys for Delhi (done during January 15–23, 2021) with an estimated 56.13% IgG antibody prevalence, yielding an estimated range for the underreporting factor for cases at 17–21. Together, these updated estimates imply approximately 92–96% cases in Delhi remained unreported (January 23, 2021). Such model-based estimates, updated with latest data, provide a viable alternative to repeated resource-intensive serosurveys for tracking unreported cases and deaths and gauging the true extent of the pandemic.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10226689
- Publisher / Repository:
- Nature Publishing Group
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Scientific Reports
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2045-2322
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
SEIRfansy is developed for broader dissemination. -
more » « less
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). -
null (Ed.)Abstract Background When three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines came to market in Europe and North America in the winter of 2020–2021, distribution networks were in a race against a major epidemiological wave of SARS-CoV-2 that began in autumn 2020. Rapid and optimized vaccine allocation was critical during this time. With 95% efficacy reported for two of the vaccines, near-term public health needs likely require that distribution is prioritized to the elderly, health care workers, teachers, essential workers, and individuals with comorbidities putting them at risk of severe clinical progression. Methods We evaluate various age-based vaccine distributions using a validated mathematical model based on current epidemic trends in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. We allow for varying waning efficacy of vaccine-induced immunity, as this has not yet been measured. We account for the fact that known COVID-positive cases may not have been included in the first round of vaccination. And, we account for age-specific immune patterns in both states at the time of the start of the vaccination program. Our analysis assumes that health systems during winter 2020–2021 had equal staffing and capacity to previous phases of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic; we do not consider the effects of understaffed hospitals or unvaccinated medical staff. Results We find that allocating a substantial proportion (>75 % ) of vaccine supply to individuals over the age of 70 is optimal in terms of reducing total cumulative deaths through mid-2021. This result is robust to different profiles of waning vaccine efficacy and several different assumptions on age mixing during and after lockdown periods. As we do not explicitly model other high-mortality groups, our results on vaccine allocation apply to all groups at high risk of mortality if infected. A median of 327 to 340 deaths can be avoided in Rhode Island (3444 to 3647 in Massachusetts) by optimizing vaccine allocation and vaccinating the elderly first. The vaccination campaigns are expected to save a median of 639 to 664 lives in Rhode Island and 6278 to 6618 lives in Massachusetts in the first half of 2021 when compared to a scenario with no vaccine. A policy of vaccinating only seronegative individuals avoids redundancy in vaccine use on individuals that may already be immune, and would result in 0.5% to 1% reductions in cumulative hospitalizations and deaths by mid-2021. Conclusions Assuming high vaccination coverage (>28 % ) and no major changes in distancing, masking, gathering size, hygiene guidelines, and virus transmissibility between 1 January 2021 and 1 July 2021 a combination of vaccination and population immunity may lead to low or near-zero transmission levels by the second quarter of 2021.more » « less
-
Infants exposed to caregivers infected with SARS-CoV-2 may have heightened infection risks relative to older children due to their more intensive care and feeding needs. However, there has been limited research on COVID-19 outcomes in exposed infants beyond the neonatal period. Between June 2020 – March 2021, we conducted interviews and collected capillary dried blood spots from 46 SARS-CoV-2 infected mothers and their infants (aged 1-36 months) for up to two months following maternal infection onset (COVID+ group, 87% breastfeeding). Comparative data were also collected from 26 breastfeeding mothers with no known SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposures (breastfeeding control group), and 11 mothers who tested SARS-CoV-2 negative after experiencing symptoms or close contact exposure (COVID- group, 73% breastfeeding). Dried blood spots were assayed for anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG and IgA positivity and anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 + S2 IgG concentrations. Within the COVID+ group, the mean probability of seropositivity among infant samples was lower than that of corresponding maternal samples (0.54 and 0.87, respectively, for IgG; 0.33 and 0.85, respectively, for IgA), with likelihood of infant infection positively associated with the number of maternal symptoms and other household infections reported. COVID+ mothers reported a lower incidence of COVID-19 symptoms among their infants as compared to themselves and other household adults, and infants had similar PCR positivity rates as other household children. No samples returned by COVID- mothers or their infants tested antibody positive. Among the breastfeeding control group, 44% of mothers but none of their infants tested antibody positive in at least one sample. Results support previous research demonstrating minimal risks to infants following maternal COVID-19 infection, including for breastfeeding infants.more » « less
-
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused devastating public health, economic, political, and societal crises. We performed a comparison study of COVID-19 outbreaks in states with Republican governors versus states with Democratic governors in the United States between April 2020 and February 2021. This research study shows that 1) states with Democratic governors had tested more people for COVID-19 and have higher testing rates than those with Republican governors; 2) states with Democratic governors had more confirmed cases for COVID-19 from April 12 until the end of July 2020, as well as from early December 2020 to February 22 2021, and had higher test positivity rates from April 12 until late June 2020, and the states with Republican governors had more confirmed cases from August to early December 2020 and had higher test positivity rates since late June 2020; 3) states with Democratic governors had more deaths for COVID-19 and higher mortality rates than those with Republican governors; 4) more people recovered in states with Democratic governors until early July 2020, while the recovery rate of states with Republican governors is similar to that of states with Democratic governors in May 2020 and higher than that of states with Democratic governors in April 2020 and between June 2020 to February 22 2021. We conclude that our data suggest that states with Republican governors controlled COVID-19 better as they had lower mortality rates and similar or higher recovery rates. States with Democratic governors first had higher test positivity rates until late June 2020 but had lower test positivity rates after July 2020. As of February 2021, the pandemic was still spreading as the daily numbers of confirmed cases and deaths were still high, although the test positivity and mortality rates started to stabilize in spring 2021. This study provides a direct description for the status and performance of handling COVID-19 in the states with Republican governors versus states with Democratic governors, and provides insights for future research, policy making, resource distribution, and administration.more » « less
