Comparative transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) and Delta (B.1.617.2) variants and the impact of vaccination: national cohort study, England.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) rapidly replaced Delta (B.1.617.2) to become dominant in England. Our study assessed differences in transmission between Omicron and Delta using two independent data sources and methods. Omicron and Delta cases were identified through genomic sequencing, genotyping and S-gene target failure in England from 5-11 December 2021. Secondary attack rates for named contacts were calculated in household and non-household settings using contact tracing data, while household clustering was identified using national surveillance data. Logistic regression models were applied to control for factors associated with transmission for both methods. For contact tracing data, higher secondary attack rates for Omicron vs. Delta were identified in households (15.0% vs. 10.8%) and non-households (8.2% vs. 3.7%). For both variants, in household settings, onward transmission was reduced from cases and named contacts who had three doses of vaccine compared to two, but this effect was less pronounced for Omicron (adjusted risk ratio, aRR 0.78 and 0.88) than Delta (aRR 0.62 and 0.68). In non-household settings, a similar reduction was observed only in contacts who had three doses vs. two doses for both Delta (aRR 0.51) and Omicron (aRR 0.76). For national surveillance data, the risk of household clustering, was increased 3.5-fold for Omicron compared to Delta (aRR 3.54 (3.29-3.81)). Our study identified increased risk of onward transmission of Omicron, consistent with its successful global displacement of Delta. We identified a reduced effectiveness of vaccination in lowering risk of transmission, a likely contributor for the rapid propagation of Omicron.

Enhancing epidemiological surveillance of the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant using spike gene target failure data, England, 15 November to 31 December 2021.

When SARS-CoV-2 Omicron emerged in 2021, S gene target failure enabled differentiation between Omicron and the dominant Delta variant. In England, where S gene target surveillance (SGTS) was already established, this led to rapid identification (within ca 3 days of sample collection) of possible Omicron cases, alongside real-time surveillance and modelling of Omicron growth. SGTS was key to public health action (including case identification and incident management), and we share applied insights on how and when to use SGTS.

Communicating uncertainty in epidemic models.

While mathematical models of disease transmission are widely used to inform public health decision-makers globally, the uncertainty inherent in results are often poorly communicated. We outline some potential sources of uncertainty in epidemic models, present traditional methods used to illustrate uncertainty and discuss alternative presentation formats used by modelling groups throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, by drawing on the experience of our own recent modelling, we seek to contribute to the ongoing discussion of how to improve upon traditional methods used to visualise uncertainty by providing a suggestion of how this can be presented in a clear and simple manner.

Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a Multiethnic London National Health Service Trust: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Detailed clinical analyses of multicultural hospitalized patient cohorts remain largely undescribed. METHODS: We performed regression, survival, and cumulative competing risk analyses to evaluate factors associated with mortality in patients admitted for COVID-19 in 3 large London hospitals between 25 February and 5 April, censored as of 1 May 2020. RESULTS: Of 614 patients (median age, 69 [interquartile range, 25] years) and 62% male), 381 (62%) were discharged alive, 178 (29%) died, and 55 (9%) remained hospitalized at censoring. Severe hypoxemia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.25 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.36-7.64]), leukocytosis (aOR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.35-4.11]), thrombocytopenia (aOR [1.01, 95% CI, 1.00-1.01], increase per 109 decrease), severe renal impairment (aOR, 5.14 [95% CI, 2.65-9.97]), and low albumin (aOR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.09], increase per gram decrease) were associated with death. Forty percent (n = 244) were from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic (BAME) groups, 38% (n = 235) were white, and ethnicity was unknown for 22% (n = 135). BAME patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities. Although the unadjusted odds of death did not differ by ethnicity, when adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, black patients were at higher odds of death compared to whites (aOR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.00-2.86]). This association was stronger when further adjusting for admission severity (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.06-3.24]). CONCLUSIONS: BAME patients were overrepresented in our cohort; when accounting for demographic and clinical profile of admission, black patients were at increased odds of death. Further research is needed into biologic drivers of differences in COVID-19 outcomes by ethnicity.

The J-IDEA Pandemic Planner: A Framework for Implementing Hospital Provision Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Planning for extreme surges in demand for hospital care of patients requiring urgent life-saving treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while retaining capacity for other emergency conditions, is one of the most challenging tasks faced by health care providers and policymakers during the pandemic. Health systems must be well-prepared to cope with large and sudden changes in demand by implementing interventions to ensure adequate access to care. We developed the first planning tool for the COVID-19 pandemic to account for how hospital provision interventions (such as cancelling elective surgery, setting up field hospitals, or hiring retired staff) will affect the capacity of hospitals to provide life-saving care. METHODS: We conducted a review of interventions implemented or considered in 12 European countries in March to April 2020, an evaluation of their impact on capacity, and a review of key parameters in the care of COVID-19 patients. This information was used to develop a planner capable of estimating the impact of specific interventions on doctors, nurses, beds, and respiratory support equipment. We applied this to a scenario-based case study of 1 intervention, the set-up of field hospitals in England, under varying levels of COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: The Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics pandemic planner is a hospital planning tool that allows hospital administrators, policymakers, and other decision-makers to calculate the amount of capacity in terms of beds, staff, and crucial medical equipment obtained by implementing the interventions. Flexible assumptions on baseline capacity, the number of hospitalizations, staff-to-beds ratios, and staff absences due to COVID-19 make the planner adaptable to multiple settings. The results of the case study show that while field hospitals alleviate the burden on the number of beds available, this intervention is futile unless the deficit of critical care nurses is addressed first. DISCUSSION: The tool supports decision-makers in delivering a fast and effective response to the pandemic. The unique contribution of the planner is that it allows users to compare the impact of interventions that change some or all inputs.

Within-country age-based prioritisation, global allocation, and public health impact of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: A mathematical modelling analysis.

The worldwide endeavour to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has been extraordinary, and vaccination is now underway in many countries. However, the doses available in 2021 are likely to be limited. We extend a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission across different country settings to evaluate the public health impact of potential vaccines using WHO-developed target product profiles. We identify optimal vaccine allocation strategies within- and between-countries to maximise averted deaths under constraints on dose supply. We find that the health impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination depends on the cumulative population-level infection incidence when vaccination begins, the duration of natural immunity, the trajectory of the epidemic prior to vaccination, and the level of healthcare available to effectively treat those with disease. Within a country we find that for a limited supply (doses for < 20% of the population) the optimal strategy is to target the elderly. However, with a larger supply, if vaccination can occur while other interventions are maintained, the optimal strategy switches to targeting key transmitters to indirectly protect the vulnerable. As supply increases, vaccines that reduce or block infection have a greater impact than those that prevent disease alone due to the indirect protection provided to high-risk groups. Given a 2 billion global dose supply in 2021, we find that a strategy in which doses are allocated to countries proportional to population size is close to optimal in averting deaths and aligns with the ethical principles agreed in pandemic preparedness planning.

Modelling intensive care unit capacity under different epidemiological scenarios of the COVID-19 pandemic in three Western European countries.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed enormous strain on intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe. Ensuring access to care, irrespective of COVID-19 status, in winter 2020-2021 is essential. METHODS: An integrated model of hospital capacity planning and epidemiological projections of COVID-19 patients is used to estimate the demand for and resultant spare capacity of ICU beds, staff and ventilators under different epidemic scenarios in France, Germany and Italy across the 2020-2021 winter period. The effect of implementing lockdowns triggered by different numbers of COVID-19 patients in ICUs under varying levels of effectiveness is examined, using a 'dual-demand' (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) patient model. RESULTS: Without sufficient mitigation, we estimate that COVID-19 ICU patient numbers will exceed those seen in the first peak, resulting in substantial capacity deficits, with beds being consistently found to be the most constrained resource. Reactive lockdowns could lead to large improvements in ICU capacity during the winter season, with pressure being most effectively alleviated when lockdown is triggered early and sustained under a higher level of suppression. The success of such interventions also depends on baseline bed numbers and average non-COVID-19 patient occupancy. CONCLUSION: Reductions in capacity deficits under different scenarios must be weighed against the feasibility and drawbacks of further lockdowns. Careful, continuous decision-making by national policymakers will be required across the winter period 2020-2021.

Adapting hospital capacity to meet changing demands during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To calculate hospital surge capacity, achieved via hospital provision interventions implemented for the emergency treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other patients through March to May 2020; to evaluate the conditions for admitting patients for elective surgery under varying admission levels of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We analysed National Health Service (NHS) datasets and literature reviews to estimate hospital care capacity before the pandemic (pre-pandemic baseline) and to quantify the impact of interventions (cancellation of elective surgery, field hospitals, use of private hospitals, deployment of former medical staff and deployment of newly qualified medical staff) for treatment of adult COVID-19 patients, focusing on general and acute (G&A) and critical care (CC) beds, staff and ventilators. RESULTS: NHS England would not have had sufficient capacity to treat all COVID-19 and other patients in March and April 2020 without the hospital provision interventions, which alleviated significant shortfalls in CC nurses, CC and G&A beds and CC junior doctors. All elective surgery can be conducted at normal pre-pandemic levels provided the other interventions are sustained, but only if the daily number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 1550 in the whole of England. If the other interventions are not maintained, then elective surgery can only be conducted if the number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 320. However, there is greater national capacity to treat G&A patients: without interventions, it takes almost 10,000 G&A COVID-19 patients before any G&A elective patients would be unable to be accommodated. CONCLUSIONS: Unless COVID-19 hospitalisations drop to low levels, there is a continued need to enhance critical care capacity in England with field hospitals, use of private hospitals or deployment of former and newly qualified medical staff to allow some or all elective surgery to take place.