Routine Hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 Testing Outperforms State-based Data in Predicting Clinical Burden

Infectious disease surveillance needs for the United States: lessons from Covid-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to upgrade systems for infectious disease surveillance and forecasting and modeling of the spread of infection, both of which inform evidence-based public health guidance and policies. Here, we discuss requirements for an effective surveillance system to support decision making during a pandemic, drawing on the lessons of COVID-19 in the U.S., while looking to jurisdictions in the U.S. and beyond to learn lessons about the value of specific data types. In this report, we define the range of decisions for which surveillance data are required, the data elements needed to inform these decisions and to calibrate inputs and outputs of transmission-dynamic models, and the types of data needed to inform decisions by state, territorial, local, and tribal health authorities. We define actions needed to ensure that such data will be available and consider the contribution of such efforts to improving health equity.

Improving the representativeness of UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey through spatio-temporal regression and post-stratification

Population-representative estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence and antibody levels in specific geographic areas at different time points are needed to optimise policy responses. However, even population-wide surveys are potentially impacted by biases arising from differences in participation rates across key groups. Here, we used spatio-temporal regression and post-stratification models to UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS) to obtain representative estimates of PCR positivity (6,496,052 tests) and antibody prevalence (1,941,333 tests) for different regions, ages and ethnicities (7-December-2020 to 4-May-2022). Not accounting for vaccination status through post-stratification led to small underestimation of PCR positivity, but more substantial overestimations of antibody levels in the population (up to 21 percentage points), particularly in groups with low vaccine uptake in the general population. There was marked variation in the relative contribution of different areas and age-groups to each wave. Future analyses of infectious disease surveys should take into account major drivers of outcomes of interest that may also influence participation, with vaccination being an important factor to consider.

Using leave-one-out cross validation (LOO) in a multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) workflow: A cautionary tale

In recent decades, multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) has surged in popularity for population inference. However, the validity of the estimates can depend on details of the model, and there is currently little research on validation. We explore how leave-one-out cross validation (LOO) can be used to compare Bayesian models for MRP. We investigate two approximate calculations of LOO: Pareto smoothed importance sampling (PSIS-LOO) and a survey-weighted alternative (WTD-PSIS-LOO). Using two simulation designs, we examine how accurately these two criteria recover the correct ordering of model goodness at predicting population and small-area estimands. Focusing first on variable selection, we find that neither PSIS-LOO nor WTD-PSIS-LOO correctly recovers the models' order for an MRP population estimand, although both criteria correctly identify the best and worst model. When considering small-area estimation, the best model differs for different small areas, highlighting the complexity of MRP validation. When considering different priors, the models' order seems slightly better at smaller-area levels. These findings suggest that, while not terrible, PSIS-LOO-based ranking techniques may not be suitable to evaluate MRP as a method. We suggest this is due to the aggregation stage of MRP, where individual-level prediction errors average out. We validate these results by applying to the real world National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data in the United States. Altogether, these results show that PSIS-LOO-based model validation tools need to be used with caution and might not convey the full story when validating MRP as a method.

Embedded multilevel regression and poststratification: Model-based inference with incomplete auxiliary information

Health disparity research often evaluates health outcomes across demographic subgroups. Multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) is a popular approach for small subgroup estimation as it can stabilize estimates by fitting multilevel models and adjust for selection bias by poststratifying on auxiliary variables, which are population characteristics predictive of the analytic outcome. However, the granularity and quality of the estimates produced by MRP are limited by the availability of the auxiliary variables' joint distribution; data analysts often only have access to the marginal distributions. To overcome this limitation, we embed the estimation of population cell counts needed for poststratification into the MRP workflow: embedded MRP (EMRP). Under EMRP, we generate synthetic populations of the auxiliary variables before implementing MRP. All sources of estimation uncertainty are propagated with a fully Bayesian framework. Through simulation studies, we compare different methods of generating the synthetic populations and demonstrate EMRP's improvements over alternatives on the bias-variance tradeoff to yield valid subpopulation inferences of interest. We apply EMRP to the Longitudinal Survey of Wellbeing and estimate food insecurity prevalence among vulnerable groups in New York City. We find that all EMRP estimators can correct for the bias in classical MRP while maintaining lower standard errors and narrower confidence intervals than directly imputing with the weighted finite population Bayesian bootstrap (WFPBB) and design-based estimates. Performances from the EMRP estimators do not differ substantially from each other, though we would generally recommend using the WFPBB-MRP for its consistently high coverage rates.

"We adjusted for race": now what? A systematic review of utilization and reporting of race in American Journal of Epidemiology and Epidemiology, 2020-2021

Race is a social construct, commonly used in epidemiologic research to adjust for confounding. However, adjustment of race may mask racial disparities, thereby perpetuating structural racism. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in Epidemiology and American Journal of Epidemiology between 2020 and 2021 to (1) understand how race, ethnicity, and similar social constructs were operationalized, used, and reported; and (2) characterize good and poor practices of utilization and reporting of race data on the basis of the extent to which they reveal or mask systemic racism. Original research articles were considered for full review and data extraction if race data were used in the study analysis. We extracted how race was categorized, used-as a descriptor, confounder, or for effect measure modification (EMM)-and reported if the authors discussed racial disparities and systemic bias-related mechanisms responsible for perpetuating the disparities. Of the 561 articles, 299 had race data available and 192 (34.2%) used race data in analyses. Among the 160 US-based studies, 81 different racial categorizations were used. Race was most often used as a confounder (52%), followed by effect measure modifier (33%), and descriptive variable (12%). Fewer than 1 in 4 articles (22.9%) exhibited good practices (EMM along with discussing disparities and mechanisms), 63.5% of the articles exhibited poor practices (confounding only or not discussing mechanisms), and 13.5% were considered neither poor nor good practices. We discuss implications and provide 13 recommendations for operationalization, utilization, and reporting of race in epidemiologic and public health research.

Beyond Vaccination Rates: A Synthetic Random Proxy Metric of Total SARS-CoV-2 Immunity Seroprevalence in the Community

BACKGROUND

Explicit knowledge of total community-level immune seroprevalence is critical to developing policies to mitigate the social and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2. Publicly available vaccination data are frequently cited as a proxy for population immunity, but this metric ignores the effects of naturally acquired immunity, which varies broadly throughout the country and world. Without broad or random sampling of the population, accurate measurement of persistent immunity post-natural infection is generally unavailable.

METHODS

To enable tracking of both naturally acquired and vaccine-induced immunity, we set up a synthetic random proxy based on routine hospital testing for estimating total immunoglobulin G (IgG) prevalence in the sampled community. Our approach analyzed viral IgG testing data of asymptomatic patients who presented for elective procedures within a hospital system. We applied multilevel regression and poststratification to adjust for demographic and geographic discrepancies between the sample and the community population. We then applied state-based vaccination data to categorize immune status as driven by natural infection or by vaccine.

RESULTS

We validated the model using verified clinical metrics of viral and symptomatic disease incidence to show the expected biologic correlation of these entities with the timing, rate, and magnitude of seroprevalence. In mid-July 2021, the estimated immunity level was 74% with the administered vaccination rate of 45% in the two counties.

CONCLUSIONS

Our metric improves real-time understanding of immunity to COVID-19 as it evolves and the coordination of policy responses to the disease, toward an inexpensive and easily operational surveillance system that transcends the limits of vaccination datasets alone.