Search

We engaged in a participatory modeling approach with health sector stakeholders in Jordan to support government decision-making regarding implementing public health measures to mitigate COVID-19 disease burden. We considered the effect of 4 physical distancing strategies on reducing COVID-19 transmission and mortality in Jordan during March 2020–January 2021: no physical distancing; intermittent physical distancing where all but essential services are closed once a week; intermittent physical distancing where all but essential services are closed twice a week; and a permanent physical distancing intervention. Modeling showed that the fourth strategy would be most effective in reducing cases and deaths; however, this approach was only marginally beneficial to reducing COVID-19 disease compared with an intermittently enforced physical distancing intervention. Scenario-based model influenced policy-making and the evolution of the pandemic in Jordan confirmed the forecasting provided by the modeling exercise and helped confirm the effectiveness of the policy adopted by the government of Jordan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has been extended by the evolution of more transmissible viral variants. In autumn 2020, the B.1.177 lineage became the dominant variant in England, before being replaced by the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage in late 2020, with the sweep occurring at different times in each region. This period coincided with a large number of non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. lockdowns) to control the epidemic, making it difficult to estimate the relative transmissibility of variants. In this paper, we model the spatial spread of these variants in England using a meta-population agent-based model which correctly characterizes the regional variation in cases and distribution of variants. As a test of robustness, we additionally estimated the relative transmissibility of multiple variants using a statistical model based on the renewal equation, which simultaneously estimates the effective reproduction number R. Relative to earlier variants, the transmissibility of B.1.177 is estimated to have increased by 1.14 (1.12-1.16) and that of Alpha by 1.71 (1.65-1.77). The vaccination programme starting in December 2020 is also modelled. Counterfactual simulations demonstrate that the vaccination programme was essential for reopening in March 2021, and that if the January lockdown had started one month earlier, up to 30 k (24 k-38 k) deaths could have been prevented. This article is part of the theme issue 'Technical challenges of modelling real-life epidemics and examples of overcoming these'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mathematical models are powerful tools in HIV epidemiology, producing quantitative projections of key indicators such as HIV incidence and prevalence. In order to improve the accuracy of predictions, such models need to incorporate a number of behavioural and biological heterogeneities, especially those related to the sexual network within which HIV transmission occurs. An individual-based model, which explicitly models sexual partnerships, is thus often the most natural type of model to choose. In this paper we present PopART-IBM, a computationally efficient individual-based model capable of simulating 50 years of an HIV epidemic in a large, high-prevalence community in under a minute. We show how the model calibrates within a Bayesian inference framework to detailed age- and sex-stratified data from multiple sources on HIV prevalence, awareness of HIV status, ART status, and viral suppression for an HPTN 071 (PopART) study community in Zambia, and present future projections of HIV prevalence and incidence for this community in the absence of trial intervention. Author summary: In this paper we present PopART-IBM, an individual-based model used to simulate HIV transmission in communities in high prevalence settings. We show that PopART-IBM can simulate transmission over a span of decades in a large community in less than a minute. This computational efficiency allows us to calibrate the model within an inference framework, and we show an illustrative example of calibration using an adaptive population Monte Carlo Approximate Bayesian Computation algorithm for a community in Zambia that was part of the HPTN-071 (PopART) trial. We compare the detailed model output to real-world data collected during the trial from this community. Finally, we project how the HIV epidemic would have changed over time in this community if no intervention from the trial had occurred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mathematical models are useful for public health planning and response to infectious disease threats. However, different models can provide differing results, which can hamper decision making if not synthesized appropriately. To address this challenge, multi-model hubs convene independent modeling groups to generate ensembles, known to provide more accurate predictions of future outcomes. Yet, these hubs are resource intensive, and how many models are sufficient in a hub is not known. Here, we compare the benefit of predictions from multiple models in different contexts: (1) decision settings that depend on predictions of quantitative outcomes (e.g., hospital capacity planning), where assessments of the benefits of multi-model ensembles have largely focused; and (2) decisions settings that require the ranking of alternative epidemic scenarios (e.g., comparing outcomes under multiple possible interventions and biological uncertainties). We develop a mathematical framework to mimic a multi-model prediction setting, and use this framework to quantify how frequently predictions from different models agree. We further explore multi-model agreement using real-world, empirical data from 14 rounds of U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub projections. Our results suggest that the value of multiple models could be different in different decision contexts, and if only a few models are available, focusing on the rank of alternative epidemic scenarios could be more robust than focusing on quantitative outcomes. Although additional exploration of the sufficient number of models for different contexts is still needed, our results indicate that it may be possible to identify decision contexts where it is robust to rely on fewer models, a finding that can inform the use of modeling resources during future public health crises., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Across many fields, scenario modeling has become an important tool for exploring long-term projections and how they might depend on potential interventions and critical uncertainties, with relevance to both decision makers and scientists. In the past decade, and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, the field of epidemiology has seen substantial growth in the use of scenario projections. Multiple scenarios are often projected at the same time, allowing important comparisons that can guide the choice of intervention, the prioritization of research topics, or public communication. The design of the scenarios is central to their ability to inform important questions. In this paper, we draw on the fields of decision analysis and statistical design of experiments to propose a framework for scenario design in epidemiology, with relevance also to other fields. We identify six different fundamental purposes for scenario designs (decision making, sensitivity analysis, situational awareness, horizon scanning, forecasting, and value of information) and discuss how those purposes guide the structure of scenarios. We discuss other aspects of the content and process of scenario design, broadly for all settings and specifically for multi-model ensemble projections. As an illustrative case study, we examine the first 17 rounds of scenarios from the U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, then reflect on future advancements that could improve the design of scenarios in epidemiological settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MCR reports stock ownership in Becton Dickinson & Co., which manufactures medical equipment used in COVID-19 testing, vaccination, and treatment. JL has served as an expert witness on cases where the likely length of the pandemic was of issue. There are no other competing interests to declare., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has been extended by the evolution of more transmissible viral variants. In autumn 2020, the B.1.177 lineage became the dominant variant in England, before being replaced by the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage in late 2020, with the sweep occurring at different times in each region. This period coincided with a large number of non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. lockdowns) to control the epidemic, making it difficult to estimate the relative transmissibility of variants. In this paper, we model the spatial spread of these variants in England using a meta-population agent-based model which correctly characterizes the regional variation in cases and distribution of variants. As a test of robustness, we additionally estimated the relative transmissibility of multiple variants using a statistical model based on the renewal equation, which simultaneously estimates the effective reproduction number R . Relative to earlier variants, the transmissibility of B.1.177 is estimated to have increased by 1.14 (1.12-1.16) and that of Alpha by 1.71 (1.65-1.77). The vaccination programme starting in December 2020 is also modelled. Counterfactual simulations demonstrate that the vaccination programme was essential for reopening in March 2021, and that if the January lockdown had started one month earlier, up to 30 k (24 k-38 k) deaths could have been prevented. This article is part of the theme issue 'Technical challenges of modelling real-life epidemics and examples of overcoming these'.

Mathematical modelling is used during disease outbreaks to compare control interventions. Using multiple models, the best method to combine model recommendations is unclear. Existing methods weight model projections, then rank control interventions using the combined projections, presuming model outputs are directly comparable. However, the way each model represents the epidemiological system will vary. We apply electoral vote-processing rules to combine model-generated rankings of interventions. Combining rankings of interventions, instead of combining model projections, avoids assuming that projections are comparable as all comparisons of projections are made within each model. We investigate four rules: First-past-the-post, Alternative Vote (AV), Coombs Method and Borda Count. We investigate rule sensitivity by including models that favour only one action or including those that rank interventions randomly. We investigate two case studies: the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa (37 compartmental models) and a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in UK (four individual-based models). The Coombs Method was least susceptible to adding models that favoured a single action, Borda Count and AV were most susceptible to adding models that ranked interventions randomly. Each rule chose the same intervention as when ranking interventions by mean projections, suggesting that combining rankings provides similar recommendations with fewer assumptions about model comparability. This article is part of the theme issue 'Technical challenges of modelling real-life epidemics and examples of overcoming these'.