1
|
Buitrago-Garcia D, Ipekci AM, Heron L, Imeri H, Araujo-Chaveron L, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Ciapponi A, Cevik M, Hauser A, Alam MI, Meili K, Meyerowitz EA, Prajapati N, Qiu X, Richterman A, Robles-Rodriguez WG, Thapa S, Zhelyazkov I, Salanti G, Low N. Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2022; 19:e1003987. [PMID: 35617363 PMCID: PMC9135333 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. REVIEW PROTOCOL Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diana Buitrago-Garcia
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Graduate School of Health Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Aziz Mert Ipekci
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Leonie Heron
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Hira Imeri
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Lucia Araujo-Chaveron
- EHESP French School of Public Health, Paris and Rennes, France
- Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
| | - Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain
| | - Agustín Ciapponi
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Muge Cevik
- Division of Infection and Global Health Research, School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland, United Kingdom
| | - Anthony Hauser
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Kaspar Meili
- Department of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Eric A. Meyerowitz
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, New York, United States of America
| | | | - Xueting Qiu
- Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Aaron Richterman
- Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | | | - Shabnam Thapa
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | | | - Georgia Salanti
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Nicola Low
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Snell LB, Wang W, Alcolea-Medina A, Charalampous T, Batra R, de Jongh L, Higgins F, Nebbia G, Wang Y, Edgeworth J, Curcin V. Descriptive comparison of admission characteristics between pandemic waves and multivariable analysis of the association of the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7 lineage) of SARS-CoV-2 with disease severity in inner London. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e055474. [PMID: 35135773 PMCID: PMC8829842 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055474] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Alpha variant (B.1.1.7 lineage) of SARS-CoV-2 emerged and became the dominant circulating variant in the UK in late 2020. Current literature is unclear on whether the Alpha variant is associated with increased severity. We linked clinical data with viral genome sequence data to compare admitted cases between SARS-CoV-2 waves in London and to investigate the association between the Alpha variant and the severity of disease. METHODS Clinical, demographic, laboratory and viral sequence data from electronic health record systems were collected for all cases with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA test between 13 March 2020 and 17 February 2021 in a multisite London healthcare institution. Multivariate analysis using logistic regression assessed risk factors for severity as defined by hypoxia at admission. RESULTS There were 5810 SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive cases of which 2341 were admitted (838 in wave 1 and 1503 in wave 2). Both waves had a temporally aligned rise in nosocomial cases (96 in wave 1 and 137 in wave 2). The Alpha variant was first identified on 15 November 2020 and increased rapidly to comprise 400/472 (85%) of sequenced isolates from admitted cases in wave 2. A multivariate analysis identified risk factors for severity on admission, such as age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03, for every year older; p<0.001), obesity (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.26; p<0.001) and infection with the Alpha variant (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.24; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Our analysis is the first in hospitalised cohorts to show increased severity of disease associated with the Alpha variant. The number of nosocomial cases was similar in both waves despite the introduction of many infection control interventions before wave 2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke B Snell
- Centre for Clinical Infection & Diagnostics Research, King's College London, London, UK
- Department of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Wenjuan Wang
- Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Adela Alcolea-Medina
- Centre for Clinical Infection & Diagnostics Research, King's College London, London, UK
- Infection Sciences, Viapath, London, UK
| | - Themoula Charalampous
- Centre for Clinical Infection & Diagnostics Research, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Rahul Batra
- Centre for Clinical Infection & Diagnostics Research, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Leonardo de Jongh
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Finola Higgins
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Gaia Nebbia
- Centre for Clinical Infection & Diagnostics Research, King's College London, London, UK
- Department of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Yanzhong Wang
- Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Jonathan Edgeworth
- Centre for Clinical Infection & Diagnostics Research, King's College London, London, UK
- Department of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Vasa Curcin
- Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Haber NA, Clarke-Deelder E, Feller A, Smith ER, Salomon JA, MacCormack-Gelles B, Stone EM, Bolster-Foucault C, Daw JR, Hatfield LA, Fry CE, Boyer CB, Ben-Michael E, Joyce CM, Linas BS, Schmid I, Au EH, Wieten SE, Jarrett B, Axfors C, Nguyen VT, Griffin BA, Bilinski A, Stuart EA. Problems with evidence assessment in COVID-19 health policy impact evaluation: a systematic review of study design and evidence strength. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e053820. [PMID: 35017250 PMCID: PMC8753111 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053820] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2021] [Accepted: 12/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Assessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment. METHODS We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on 26 November 2020 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and released review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation. RESULTS After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-sectional), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. DISCUSSION The reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for inference of sufficient rigour to be actionable by policy-makers. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noah A Haber
- Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford University (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Emma Clarke-Deelder
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Avi Feller
- Department of Statistics, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
| | - Emily R Smith
- Department of Global Health, George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Joshua A Salomon
- Department of Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Benjamin MacCormack-Gelles
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Elizabeth M Stone
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Clara Bolster-Foucault
- Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
| | - Jamie R Daw
- Health Policy and Management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA
| | - Laura Anne Hatfield
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Carrie E Fry
- Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Christopher B Boyer
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Eli Ben-Michael
- Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Caroline M Joyce
- Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
| | - Beth S Linas
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Center for Applied Public Health and Research, RTI International, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ian Schmid
- Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Eric H Au
- School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sarah E Wieten
- Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford University (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Brooke Jarrett
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Cathrine Axfors
- Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford University (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Van Thu Nguyen
- Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford University (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | | | - Alyssa Bilinski
- Interfaculty Initiative in Health Policy, Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Elizabeth A Stuart
- Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Snell LB, Fisher CL, Taj U, Stirrup O, Merrick B, Alcolea-Medina A, Charalampous T, Signell AW, Wilson HD, Betancor G, Kia Ik MT, Cunningham E, Cliff PR, Pickering S, Galao RP, Batra R, Neil SJD, Malim MH, Doores KJ, Douthwaite ST, Nebbia G, Edgeworth JD, Awan AR. Combined epidemiological and genomic analysis of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection early in the pandemic and the role of unidentified cases in transmission. Clin Microbiol Infect 2022; 28:93-100. [PMID: 34400345 PMCID: PMC8361005 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.07.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2021] [Revised: 07/28/2021] [Accepted: 07/31/2021] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To analyse nosocomial transmission in the early stages of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at a large multisite healthcare institution. Nosocomial incidence is linked with infection control interventions. METHODS Viral genome sequence and epidemiological data were analysed for 574 consecutive patients, including 86 nosocomial cases, with a positive PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the first 19 days of the pandemic. RESULTS Forty-four putative transmission clusters were found through epidemiological analysis; these included 234 cases and all 86 nosocomial cases. SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences were obtained from 168/234 (72%) of these cases in epidemiological clusters, including 77/86 nosocomial cases (90%). Only 75/168 (45%) of epidemiologically linked, sequenced cases were not refuted by applying genomic data, creating 14 final clusters accounting for 59/77 sequenced nosocomial cases (77%). Viral haplotypes from these clusters were enriched 1-14x (median 4x) compared to the community. Three factors implicated unidentified cases in transmission: (a) community-onset or indeterminate cases were absent in 7/14 clusters (50%), (b) four clusters (29%) had additional evidence of cryptic transmission, and (c) in three clusters (21%) diagnosis of the earliest case was delayed, which may have facilitated transmission. Nosocomial cases decreased to low levels (0-2 per day) despite continuing high numbers of admissions of community-onset SARS-CoV-2 cases (40-50 per day) and before the impact of introducing universal face masks and banning hospital visitors. CONCLUSION Genomics was necessary to accurately resolve transmission clusters. Our data support unidentified cases-such as healthcare workers or asymptomatic patients-as important vectors of transmission. Evidence is needed to ascertain whether routine screening increases case ascertainment and limits nosocomial transmission.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke B Snell
- Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK; Directorate of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chloe L Fisher
- Genomics Innovation Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Usman Taj
- Directorate of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Blair Merrick
- Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK; Directorate of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Themoula Charalampous
- Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK
| | | | - Harry D Wilson
- Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunological and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK
| | - Gilberto Betancor
- Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunological and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK
| | - Mark Tan Kia Ik
- Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK
| | - Emma Cunningham
- Infection Sciences, Viapath, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - Suzanne Pickering
- Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunological and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK
| | - Rui Pedro Galao
- Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunological and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK
| | - Rahul Batra
- Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK; Directorate of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Stuart J D Neil
- Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunological and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK
| | - Michael H Malim
- Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunological and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK
| | - Katie J Doores
- Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunological and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK
| | - Sam T Douthwaite
- Directorate of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Gaia Nebbia
- Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK; Directorate of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jonathan D Edgeworth
- Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK; Directorate of Infection, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ali R Awan
- Genomics Innovation Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Haber NA, Clarke-Deelder E, Feller A, Smith ER, Salomon J, MacCormack-Gelles B, Stone EM, Bolster-Foucault C, Daw JR, Hatfield LA, Fry CE, Boyer CB, Ben-Michael E, Joyce CM, Linas BS, Schmid I, Au EH, Wieten SE, Jarrett BA, Axfors C, Nguyen VT, Griffin BA, Bilinski A, Stuart EA. Problems with Evidence Assessment in COVID-19 Health Policy Impact Evaluation (PEACHPIE): A systematic review of study design and evidence strength. MEDRXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES 2021. [PMID: 33501457 PMCID: PMC7836129 DOI: 10.1101/2021.01.21.21250243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Assessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment. This study systematically reviewed the strength of evidence in the published COVID-19 policy impact evaluation literature. Methods: We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on November 26, 2020 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and released review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation, assessing what impact evaluation method was used, graphical display of outcomes data, functional form for the outcomes, timing between policy and impact, concurrent changes to the outcomes, and an overall rating. Results: After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. The majority (n=23/36) of studies in our sample examined the impact of stay-at-home requirements. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-section), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 1/27 studies passed all of the above checks, and 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. Discussion: The reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for inference of sufficient rigor to be actionable by policymakers. This was largely driven by the circumstances under which policies were passed making it difficult to attribute changes in COVID-19 outcomes to particular policies. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noah A Haber
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Emma Clarke-Deelder
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Avi Feller
- Goldman School of Public Policy, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
| | - Emily R Smith
- Department of Global Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, D.C, USA
| | - Joshua Salomon
- Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Elizabeth M Stone
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Clara Bolster-Foucault
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - Jamie R Daw
- Health Policy and Management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Laura A Hatfield
- Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Carrie E Fry
- Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Christopher B Boyer
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Eli Ben-Michael
- Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Caroline M Joyce
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - Beth S Linas
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.,Clinical Quality and Informatics, MITRE Corp, McLean, VA, USA
| | - Ian Schmid
- Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Eric H Au
- School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Sarah E Wieten
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Brooke A Jarrett
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Cathrine Axfors
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Van Thu Nguyen
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Alyssa Bilinski
- Interfaculty Initiative in Health Policy, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Elizabeth A Stuart
- Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Syed MA, Al Nuaimi AS, A/Qotba HA, Al Mujjali H, Abdulmalik MA, Al Abdulla SA, Aladab AH, Kutty KG, Hamed ES. Estimating point prevalence of COVID-19 in Qatar's primary care registered population: an RT-PCR drive-through study protocol. BJGP Open 2021; 5:BJGPO.2020.0160. [PMID: 33318046 PMCID: PMC8170602 DOI: 10.3399/bjgpo.2020.0160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2020] [Accepted: 11/03/2020] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The first COVID-19 cases in Qatar were reported on 29 February 2020. As the epidemic progresses, essential epidemiological information is needed to facilitate monitoring of COVID-19 in the population and plan the pandemic response in Qatar. AIM The primary aim of this cross-sectional study is to estimate the point prevalence of COVID-19 in Qatar's primary care registered population. DESIGN & SETTING A cross-sectional study design will be utilised. One publicly funded health centre from each of three geographical regions in Qatar will be identified as a study location and set up to facilitate a drive-through for the study. METHOD Primary Health Care Corporation (PHCC) is publicly funded and the largest primary care provider in Qatar. The study will include randomly selected individuals from the full list of PHCC's registered population on its electronic medical records system. The sample selection will be done using a proportional to size sampling technique stratified by age, sex, and nationality representative of the overall PHCC-registered population. Considering the total population registered in PHCC, a sample of 2080 is proposed. A questionnaire will be administered to collect sociodemographic information, and nasal and throat swab samples will be taken. Data will be analysed to report overall symptomatic and asymptomatic point prevalence of COVID-19. CONCLUSION This study, with the help of a randomly selected representative sample from Qatar's primary care registered population, will provide results that can be applied to the entire population. This study design will closely represent a real-world scenario of the outbreak and is likely to provide important data to guide COVID-19 pandemic planning and response in Qatar.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohamed Ahmed Syed
- Department of Clinical Affairs, Primary Health Care Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | | | | | - Hanan Al Mujjali
- Department of Clinical Affairs, Primary Health Care Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | | | | | | | | | - Ehab Said Hamed
- Department of Clinical Operations, Primary Health Care Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Simmonds P. Pervasive RNA Secondary Structure in the Genomes of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Coronaviruses. mBio 2020; 11:e01661-20. [PMID: 33127861 PMCID: PMC7642675 DOI: 10.1128/mbio.01661-20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2020] [Accepted: 10/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
The ultimate outcome of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unknown and is dependent on a complex interplay of its pathogenicity, transmissibility, and population immunity. In the current study, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was investigated for the presence of large-scale internal RNA base pairing in its genome. This property, termed genome-scale ordered RNA structure (GORS) has been previously associated with host persistence in other positive-strand RNA viruses, potentially through its shielding effect on viral RNA recognition in the cell. Genomes of SARS-CoV-2 were remarkably structured, with minimum folding energy differences (MFEDs) of 15%, substantially greater than previously examined viruses such as hepatitis C virus (HCV) (MFED of 7 to 9%). High MFED values were shared with all coronavirus genomes analyzed and created by several hundred consecutive energetically favored stem-loops throughout the genome. In contrast to replication-associated RNA structure, GORS was poorly conserved in the positions and identities of base pairing with other sarbecoviruses-even similarly positioned stem-loops in SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV rarely shared homologous pairings, indicative of more rapid evolutionary change in RNA structure than in the underlying coding sequences. Sites predicted to be base paired in SARS-CoV-2 showed less sequence diversity than unpaired sites, suggesting that disruption of RNA structure by mutation imposes a fitness cost on the virus that is potentially restrictive to its longer evolution. Although functionally uncharacterized, GORS in SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses represents important elements in their cellular interactions that may contribute to their persistence and transmissibility.IMPORTANCE The detection and characterization of large-scale RNA secondary structure in the genome of SARS-CoV-2 indicate an extraordinary and unsuspected degree of genome structural organization; this could be effectively visualized through a newly developed contour plotting method that displays positions, structural features, and conservation of RNA secondary structure between related viruses. Such RNA structure imposes a substantial evolutionary cost; paired sites showed greater restriction in diversity and represent a substantial additional constraint in reconstructing its molecular epidemiology. Its biological relevance arises from previously documented associations between possession of structured genomes and persistence, as documented for HCV and several other RNA viruses infecting humans and mammals. Shared properties potentially conferred by large-scale structure in SARS-CoV-2 include increasing evidence for prolonged infections and induced immune dysfunction that prevents development of protective immunity. The findings provide an additional element to cellular interactions that potentially influences the natural history of SARS-CoV-2, its pathogenicity, and its transmission.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Simmonds
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Martin J, Klapsa D, Wilton T, Zambon M, Bentley E, Bujaki E, Fritzsche M, Mate R, Majumdar M. Tracking SARS-CoV-2 in Sewage: Evidence of Changes in Virus Variant Predominance during COVID-19 Pandemic. Viruses 2020; 12:E1144. [PMID: 33050264 PMCID: PMC7601348 DOI: 10.3390/v12101144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2020] [Revised: 10/02/2020] [Accepted: 10/04/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), responsible for the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, is frequently shed in faeces during infection, and viral RNA has recently been detected in sewage in some countries. We have investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater samples from South-East England between 14th January and 12th May 2020. A novel nested RT-PCR approach targeting five different regions of the viral genome improved the sensitivity of RT-qPCR assays and generated nucleotide sequences at sites with known sequence polymorphisms among SARS-CoV-2 isolates. We were able to detect co-circulating virus variants, some specifically prevalent in England, and to identify changes in viral RNA sequences with time consistent with the recently reported increasing global dominance of Spike protein G614 pandemic variant. Low levels of viral RNA were detected in a sample from 11th February, 3 days before the first case was reported in the sewage plant catchment area. SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration increased in March and April, and a sharp reduction was observed in May, showing the effects of lockdown measures. We conclude that viral RNA sequences found in sewage closely resemble those from clinical samples and that environmental surveillance can be used to monitor SARS-CoV-2 transmission, tracing virus variants and detecting virus importations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javier Martin
- Division of Virology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG, UK; (D.K.); (T.W.); (E.B.); (E.B.); (M.M.)
| | - Dimitra Klapsa
- Division of Virology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG, UK; (D.K.); (T.W.); (E.B.); (E.B.); (M.M.)
| | - Thomas Wilton
- Division of Virology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG, UK; (D.K.); (T.W.); (E.B.); (E.B.); (M.M.)
| | - Maria Zambon
- Respiratory Virology & Polio Reference Service, Public Health England, London NW9 5EQ, UK;
| | - Emma Bentley
- Division of Virology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG, UK; (D.K.); (T.W.); (E.B.); (E.B.); (M.M.)
| | - Erika Bujaki
- Division of Virology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG, UK; (D.K.); (T.W.); (E.B.); (E.B.); (M.M.)
| | - Martin Fritzsche
- Division of Analytical and Biological Sciences, NIBSC, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG, UK; (M.F.); (R.M.)
| | - Ryan Mate
- Division of Analytical and Biological Sciences, NIBSC, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG, UK; (M.F.); (R.M.)
| | - Manasi Majumdar
- Division of Virology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG, UK; (D.K.); (T.W.); (E.B.); (E.B.); (M.M.)
| |
Collapse
|