Search

Background: Infectious disease models, including individual based models (IBMs), can be used to inform public health response. For these models to be effective, accurate estimates of key parameters describing the natural history of infection and disease are needed. However, obtaining these parameter estimates from epidemiological studies is not always straightforward. We aim to 1) outline challenges to parameter estimation that arise due to common biases found in epidemiologic studies and 2) describe the conditions under which careful consideration in the design and analysis of the study could allow us to obtain a causal estimate of the parameter of interest. In this discussion we do not focus on issues of generalizability and transportability., Methods: Using examples from the COVID-19 pandemic, we first identify different ways of parameterizing IBMs and describe ideal study designs to estimate these parameters. Given real-world limitations, we describe challenges in parameter estimation due to confounding and conditioning on a post-exposure observation. We then describe ideal study designs that can lead to unbiased parameter estimates. We finally discuss additional challenges in estimating progression probabilities and the consequences of these challenges., Results: Causal estimation can only occur if we are able to accurately measure and control for all confounding variables that create non-causal associations between the exposure and outcome of interest, which is sometimes challenging given the nature of the variables we need to measure. In the absence of perfect control, non-causal parameter estimates should still be used, as sometimes they are the best available information we have., Conclusions: Identifying which estimates from epidemiologic studies correspond to the quantities needed to parameterize disease models, and determining whether these parameters have causal interpretations, can inform future study designs and improve inferences from infectious disease models. Understanding the way in which biases can arise in parameter estimation can inform sensitivity analyses or help with interpretation of results if the magnitude and direction of the bias is understood.

Nursing homes (NH) were among the first settings to receive COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, but staff vaccination coverage remains low at an average of 64%. Using an agent-based model, we examined the impact of community prevalence, the Delta variant, staff vaccination coverage, and boosters for residents on outbreak dynamics in nursing homes. We found that increased staff primary series coverage and high booster vaccine effectiveness (VE) in residents leads to fewer infections and that the cumulative incidence is highly dependent on community transmission. Despite high VE, high community transmission resulted in continued symptomatic infections in NHs.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown high efficacy of multiple vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19), and recent studies have shown the vaccines are also effective against infection. Evidence for the effect of each of these vaccines on ability to transmit the virus is also beginning to emerge. We describe an approach to estimate these vaccines' effects on viral positivity, a prevalence measure which under the reasonable assumption that vaccinated individuals who become infected are no more infectious than unvaccinated individuals forms a lower bound on efficacy against transmission. Specifically, we recommend separate analysis of positive tests triggered by symptoms (usually the primary outcome) and cross-sectional prevalence of positive tests obtained regardless of symptoms. The odds ratio of carriage for vaccine vs. placebo provides an unbiased estimate of vaccine effectiveness against viral positivity, under certain assumptions, and we show through simulations that likely departures from these assumptions will only modestly bias this estimate. Applying this approach to published data from the RCT of the Moderna vaccine, we estimate that one dose of vaccine reduces the potential for transmission by at least 61%, possibly considerably more. We describe how these approaches can be translated into observational studies of vaccine effectiveness., Competing Interests: Competing interests Dr. Lipsitch reports consulting/honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi Pasteur, and Merck, as well as a grant through his institution, unrelated to COVID-19, from Pfizer. He has served as an unpaid advisor related to COVID-19 to Pfizer, One Day Sooner, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, and COVAX (United Biomedical). Dr. Kahn discloses consulting fees from Partners In Health.

Universities have turned to SARS-CoV-2 models to examine campus reopening strategies 1-9 . While these studies have explored a variety of modeling techniques, all have relied on simulated data. Here, we use an empirical proximity network of college freshmen 10 , ascertained using smartphone Bluetooth, to simulate the spread of the virus. We investigate the role of testing, isolation, mask wearing, and social distancing in the presence of implementation challenges and imperfect compliance. Here we show that while frequent testing can drastically reduce spread if mask wearing and social distancing are not widely adopted, testing has limited impact if they are ubiquitous. Furthermore, even moderate levels of immunity can significantly reduce new infections, especially when combined with other interventions. Our findings suggest that while testing and isolation are powerful tools, they have limited benefit if other interventions are widely adopted. If universities can attain high levels of masking and social distancing, they may be able to relax testing frequency to once every two to four weeks., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Background: Nursing home residents and staff were included in the first phase of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. Because the primary trial endpoint was vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic disease, there are limited data on the extent to which vaccines protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the ability to infect others (infectiousness). Assumptions about VE against infection and infectiousness have implications for possible changes to infection prevention guidance for vaccinated populations, including testing strategies., Methods: We use a stochastic agent-based SEIR model of a nursing home to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We model three scenarios, varying VE against infection, infectiousness, and symptoms, to understand the expected impact of vaccination in nursing homes, increasing staff vaccination coverage, and different screening testing strategies under each scenario., Results: Increasing vaccination coverage in staff decreases total symptomatic cases in each scenario. When there is low VE against infection and infectiousness, increasing staff coverage reduces symptomatic cases among residents. If vaccination only protects against symptoms, but asymptomatic cases remain infectious, increased staff coverage increases symptomatic cases among residents through exposure to asymptomatic but infected staff. High frequency testing is needed to reduce total symptomatic cases if the vaccine has low efficacy against infection and infectiousness, or only protects against symptoms., Conclusions: Encouraging staff vaccination is not only important for protecting staff, but might also reduce symptomatic cases in residents if a vaccine confers at least some protection against infection or infectiousness., Summary: The extent of efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against infection, infectiousness, or disease, impacts strategies for vaccination and testing in nursing homes. If vaccines confer some protection against infection or infectiousness, encouraging vaccination in staff may reduce symptomatic cases in residents.

To account for delays between specimen collection and report, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene used a time-correlated Bayesian nowcasting approach to support real-time COVID-19 situational awareness. We retrospectively evaluated nowcasting performance for case counts among residents diagnosed during March-May 2020, a period when the median reporting delay was 2 days. Nowcasts with a 2-week moving window and a negative binomial distribution had lower mean absolute error, lower relative root mean square error, and higher 95% prediction interval coverage than nowcasts conducted with a 3-week moving window or with a Poisson distribution. Nowcasts conducted toward the end of the week outperformed nowcasts performed earlier in the week, given fewer patients diagnosed on weekends and lack of day-of-week adjustments. When estimating case counts for weekdays only, metrics were similar across days the nowcasts were conducted, with Mondays having the lowest mean absolute error, of 183 cases in the context of an average daily weekday case count of 2,914. Nowcasting ensured that recent decreases in observed case counts were not overinterpreted as true declines and supported health department leadership in anticipating the magnitude and timing of hospitalizations and deaths and allocating resources geographically.

Estimation of the effective reproductive number, R t , is important for detecting changes in disease transmission over time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers and public health officials are using R t to assess the effectiveness of interventions and to inform policy. However, estimation of R t 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 R t , we recommend the approach of Cori et al. (2013), 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 (2004), 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 spread. We advise against using methods derived from Bettencourt and Ribeiro (2008), as the resulting R t 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 R t estimation.

Background As COVID-19 continues to spread around the world, understanding how patterns of human mobility and connectivity affect outbreak dynamics, especially before outbreaks establish locally, is critical for informing response efforts. In Taiwan, most cases to date were imported or linked to imported cases. Methods In collaboration with Facebook Data for Good, we characterized changes in movement patterns in Taiwan since February 2020, and built metapopulation models that incorporate human movement data to identify the high risk areas of disease spread and assess the potential effects of local travel restrictions in Taiwan. Results We found that mobility changed with the number of local cases in Taiwan in the past few months. For each city, we identified the most highly connected areas that may serve as sources of importation during an outbreak. We showed that the risk of an outbreak in Taiwan is enhanced if initial infections occur around holidays. Intracity travel reductions have a higher impact on the risk of an outbreak than intercity travel reductions, while intercity travel reductions can narrow the scope of the outbreak and help target resources. The timing, duration, and level of travel reduction together determine the impact of travel reductions on the number of infections, and multiple combinations of these can result in similar impact. Conclusions To prepare for the potential spread within Taiwan, we utilized Facebook's aggregated and anonymized movement and colocation data to identify cities with higher risk of infection and regional importation. We developed an interactive application that allows users to vary inputs and assumptions and shows the spatial spread of the disease and the impact of intercity and intracity travel reduction under different initial conditions. Our results can be used readily if local transmission occurs in Taiwan after relaxation of border control, providing important insights into future disease surveillance and policies for travel restrictions.

The extent and duration of immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection are critical outstanding questions about the epidemiology of this novel virus, and studies are needed to evaluate the effects of serostatus on reinfection. Understanding the potential sources of bias and methods to alleviate biases in these studies is important for informing their design and analysis. Confounding by individual-level risk factors in observational studies like these is relatively well appreciated. Here, we show how geographic structure and the underlying, natural dynamics of epidemics can also induce noncausal associations. We take the approach of simulating serologic studies in the context of an uncontrolled or a controlled epidemic, under different assumptions about whether prior infection does or does not protect an individual against subsequent infection, and using various designs and analytic approaches to analyze the simulated data. We find that in studies assessing the efficacy of serostatus on future infection, comparing seropositive individuals to seronegative individuals with similar time-dependent patterns of exposure to infection, by stratifying or matching on geographic location and time of enrollment, is essential to prevent bias.

Background: Voluntary individual quarantine and voluntary active monitoring of contacts are core disease control strategies for emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. Given the impact of quarantine on resources and individual liberty, it is vital to assess under what conditions individual quarantine can more effectively control COVID-19 than active monitoring. As an epidemic grows, it is also important to consider when these interventions are no longer feasible, and broader mitigation measures must be implemented., Methods: To estimate the comparative efficacy of these case-based interventions to control COVID-19, we fit a stochastic branching model to reported parameters for the dynamics of the disease. Specifically, we fit to the incubation period distribution and each of two sets of the serial interval distribution: a shorter one with a mean serial interval of 4.8 days and a longer one with a mean of 7.5 days. To assess variable resource settings, we consider two feasibility settings: a high feasibility setting with 90% of contacts traced, a half-day average delay in tracing and symptom recognition, and 90% effective isolation; and low feasibility setting with 50% of contacts traced, a two-day average delay, and 50% effective isolation., Findings: Our results suggest that individual quarantine in high feasibility settings where at least three-quarters of infected contacts are individually quarantined contains an outbreak of COVID-19 with a short serial interval (4.8 days) 84% of the time. However, in settings where this performance is unrealistically high and the outbreak continues to grow, so too will the burden of the number of contacts traced for active monitoring or quarantine. When resources are prioritized for scalable interventions such as social distancing, we show active monitoring or individual quarantine of high-risk contacts can contribute synergistically to mitigation efforts., Interpretation: Our model highlights the urgent need for more data on the serial interval and the extent of presymptomatic transmission in order to make data-driven policy decisions regarding the cost-benefit comparisons of individual quarantine vs. active monitoring of contacts. To the extent these interventions can be implemented they can help mitigate the spread of COVID-19., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.

Background: The spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the United States confirms that not all Americans are equally at risk of infection, severe disease, or mortality. A range of intersecting biological, demographic, and socioeconomic factors are likely to determine an individual's susceptibility to COVID-19. These factors vary significantly across counties in the United States, and often reflect the structural inequities in our society. Recognizing this vast inter-county variation in risks will be critical to mounting an adequate response strategy., Methods and Findings: Using publicly available county-specific data we identified key biological, demographic, and socioeconomic factors influencing susceptibility to COVID-19, guided by international experiences and consideration of epidemiological parameters of importance. We created bivariate county-level maps to summarize examples of key relationships across these categories, grouping age and poverty; comorbidities and lack of health insurance; proximity, density and bed capacity; and race and ethnicity, and premature death. We have also made available an interactive online tool that allows public health officials to query risk factors most relevant to their local context.Our data demonstrate significant inter-county variation in key epidemiological risk factors, with a clustering of counties in certain states, which will result in an increased demand on their public health system. While the East and West coast cities are particularly vulnerable owing to their densities (and travel routes), a large number of counties in the Southeastern states have a high proportion of at-risk populations, with high levels of poverty, comorbidities, and premature death at baseline, and low levels of health insurance coverage.The list of variables we have examined is by no means comprehensive, and several of them are interrelated and magnify underlying vulnerabilities. The online tool allows readers to explore additional combinations of risk factors, set categorical thresholds for each covariate, and filter counties above different population thresholds., Conclusion: COVID-19 responses and decision making in the United States remain decentralized. Both the federal and state governments will benefit from recognizing high intra-state, inter-county variation in population risks and response capacity. Many of the factors that are likely to exacerbate the burden of COVID-19 and the demand on healthcare systems are the compounded result of long-standing structural inequalities in US society. Strategies to protect those in the most vulnerable counties will require urgent measures to better support communities' attempts at social distancing and to accelerate cooperation across jurisdictions to supply personnel and equipment to counties that will experience high demand., Competing Interests: Competing Interests None to declare