Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
PLoS Med ; 20(6): e1004240, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20243081

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Circulation of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MRB) in healthcare facilities is a major public health problem. These settings have been greatly impacted by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, notably due to surges in COVID-19 caseloads and the implementation of infection control measures. We sought to evaluate how such collateral impacts of COVID-19 impacted the nosocomial spread of MRB in an early pandemic context. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed a mathematical model in which Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and MRB cocirculate among patients and staff in a theoretical hospital population. Responses to COVID-19 were captured mechanistically via a range of parameters that reflect impacts of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on factors relevant for pathogen transmission. COVID-19 responses include both "policy responses" willingly enacted to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission (e.g., universal masking, patient lockdown, and reinforced hand hygiene) and "caseload responses" unwillingly resulting from surges in COVID-19 caseloads (e.g., abandonment of antibiotic stewardship, disorganization of infection control programmes, and extended length of stay for COVID-19 patients). We conducted 2 main sets of model simulations, in which we quantified impacts of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on MRB colonization incidence and antibiotic resistance rates (the share of colonization due to antibiotic-resistant versus antibiotic-sensitive strains). The first set of simulations represents diverse MRB and nosocomial environments, accounting for high levels of heterogeneity across bacterial parameters (e.g., rates of transmission, antibiotic sensitivity, and colonization prevalence among newly admitted patients) and hospital parameters (e.g., rates of interindividual contact, antibiotic exposure, and patient admission/discharge). On average, COVID-19 control policies coincided with MRB prevention, including 28.2% [95% uncertainty interval: 2.5%, 60.2%] fewer incident cases of patient MRB colonization. Conversely, surges in COVID-19 caseloads favoured MRB transmission, resulting in a 13.8% [-3.5%, 77.0%] increase in colonization incidence and a 10.4% [0.2%, 46.9%] increase in antibiotic resistance rates in the absence of concomitant COVID-19 control policies. When COVID-19 policy responses and caseload responses were combined, MRB colonization incidence decreased by 24.2% [-7.8%, 59.3%], while resistance rates increased by 2.9% [-5.4%, 23.2%]. Impacts of COVID-19 responses varied across patients and staff and their respective routes of pathogen acquisition. The second set of simulations was tailored to specific hospital wards and nosocomial bacteria (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli). Consequences of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks were found to be highly context specific, with impacts depending on the specific ward and bacteria evaluated. In particular, SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks significantly impacted patient MRB colonization only in settings with high underlying risk of bacterial transmission. Yet across settings and species, antibiotic resistance burden was reduced in facilities with timelier implementation of effective COVID-19 control policies. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that surges in nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission generate selection for the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Timely implementation of efficient COVID-19 control measures thus has 2-fold benefits, preventing the transmission of both SARS-CoV-2 and MRB, and highlighting antibiotic resistance control as a collateral benefit of pandemic preparedness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/prevention & control , Infection Control/methods , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Hospitals , Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial
2.
PLoS Pathog ; 19(3): e1011167, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2286901

ABSTRACT

Despite the availability of effective vaccines, the persistence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) suggests that cocirculation with other pathogens and resulting multiepidemics (of, for example, COVID-19 and influenza) may become increasingly frequent. To better forecast and control the risk of such multiepidemics, it is essential to elucidate the potential interactions of SARS-CoV-2 with other pathogens; these interactions, however, remain poorly defined. Here, we aimed to review the current body of evidence about SARS-CoV-2 interactions. Our review is structured in four parts. To study pathogen interactions in a systematic and comprehensive way, we first developed a general framework to capture their major components: sign (either negative for antagonistic interactions or positive for synergistic interactions), strength (i.e., magnitude of the interaction), symmetry (describing whether the interaction depends on the order of infection of interacting pathogens), duration (describing whether the interaction is short-lived or long-lived), and mechanism (e.g., whether interaction modifies susceptibility to infection, transmissibility of infection, or severity of disease). Second, we reviewed the experimental evidence from animal models about SARS-CoV-2 interactions. Of the 14 studies identified, 11 focused on the outcomes of coinfection with nonattenuated influenza A viruses (IAVs), and 3 with other pathogens. The 11 studies on IAV used different designs and animal models (ferrets, hamsters, and mice) but generally demonstrated that coinfection increased disease severity compared with either monoinfection. By contrast, the effect of coinfection on the viral load of either virus was variable and inconsistent across studies. Third, we reviewed the epidemiological evidence about SARS-CoV-2 interactions in human populations. Although numerous studies were identified, only a few were specifically designed to infer interaction, and many were prone to multiple biases, including confounding. Nevertheless, their results suggested that influenza and pneumococcal conjugate vaccinations were associated with a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, fourth, we formulated simple transmission models of SARS-CoV-2 cocirculation with an epidemic viral pathogen or an endemic bacterial pathogen, showing how they can naturally incorporate the proposed framework. More generally, we argue that such models, when designed with an integrative and multidisciplinary perspective, will be invaluable tools to resolve the substantial uncertainties that remain about SARS-CoV-2 interactions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Influenza, Human , Humans , Animals , Mice , SARS-CoV-2 , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Coinfection/epidemiology , Ferrets
3.
BMC Infect Dis ; 22(1): 815, 2022 Nov 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2098323

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a rapidly spreading disease affecting human life and the economy on a global scale. The disease has caused so far more then 5.5 million deaths. The omicron outbreak that emerged in Botswana in the south of Africa spread around the globe at further increased rates, and caused unprecedented SARS-CoV-2 infection incidences in several countries. At the start of December 2021 the first omicron cases were reported in France. METHODS: In this paper we investigate the spreading potential of this novel variant relatively to the delta variant that was also in circulation in France at that time. Using a dynamic multi-variant model accounting for cross-immunity through a status-based approach, we analyze screening data reported by Santé Publique France over 13 metropolitan French regions between 1st of December 2021 and the 30th of January 2022. During the investigated period, the delta variant was replaced by omicron in all metropolitan regions in approximately three weeks. The analysis conducted retrospectively allows us to consider the whole replacement time window and compare regions with different times of omicron introduction and baseline levels of variants' transmission potential. As large uncertainties regarding cross-immunity among variants persist, uncertainty analyses were carried out to assess its impact on our estimations. RESULTS: Assuming that 80% of the population was immunized against delta, a cross delta/omicron cross-immunity of 25% and an omicron generation time of 3.5 days, the relative strength of omicron to delta, expressed as the ratio of their respective reproduction rates, [Formula: see text], was found to range between 1.51 and 1.86 across regions. Uncertainty analysis on epidemiological parameters led to [Formula: see text] ranging from 1.57 to 2.34 on average over the metropolitan French regions, weighted by population size. CONCLUSIONS: Upon introduction, omicron spread rapidly through the French territory and showed a high fitness relative to delta. We documented considerable geographical heterogeneities on the spreading dynamics. The historical reconstruction of variant emergence dynamics provide valuable ground knowledge to face future variant emergence events.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Botswana
4.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(7): 1345-1354, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1847125

ABSTRACT

Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection frequently occur in hospitals. Preventing nosocomial infection requires insight into hospital transmission. However, estimates of the basic reproduction number (R0) in care facilities are lacking. Analyzing a closely monitored SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a hospital in early 2020, we estimated the patient-to-patient transmission rate and R0. We developed a model for SARS-CoV-2 nosocomial transmission that accounts for stochastic effects and undetected infections and fit it to patient test results. The model formalizes changes in testing capacity over time, and accounts for evolving PCR sensitivity at different stages of infection. R0 estimates varied considerably across wards, ranging from 3 to 15 in different wards. During the outbreak, the hospital introduced a contact precautions policy. Our results strongly support a reduction in the hospital-level R0 after this policy was implemented, from 8.7 to 1.3, corresponding to a policy efficacy of 85% and demonstrating the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Basic Reproduction Number , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Humans , Infection Control/methods , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; 41(2): 101054, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1783119
6.
BMJ Glob Health ; 7(2)2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1707259

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: When vaccines against the novel COVID-19 were available in Senegal, many questions were raised. How long should non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) be maintained during vaccination roll-out? What are the best vaccination strategies? METHODS: In this study, we used an age-structured dynamic mathematical model. This model uses parameters based on SARS-CoV-2 virus, information on different types of NPIs, epidemiological and demographic data, some parameters relating to hospitalisations and vaccination in Senegal. RESULTS: In all scenarios explored, the model predicts a larger third epidemic wave of COVID-19 in terms of new cases and deaths than the previous waves. In a context of limited vaccine supply, vaccination alone will not be sufficient to control the epidemic, and the continuation of NPIs is necessary to flatten the epidemic curve. Assuming 20% of the population have been vaccinated, the optimal period to relax NPIs would be a few days from the last peak. Regarding the prioritisation of age groups to be vaccinated, the model shows that it is better to vaccinate individuals aged 5-60 years and not just the elderly (over 60 years) and those in high-risk groups. This strategy could be more cost-effective for the government, as it would reduce the high costs associated with hospitalisation. In terms of vaccine distribution, the optimal strategy would be to allocate full dose to the elderly. If vaccine doses are limited, half dose followed by full dose would be sufficient for people under 40 years because whether they receive half or full dose, the reduction in hospitalisations would be similar and their death-to-case ratio is very low. CONCLUSIONS: This study could be presented as a decision support tool to help devise strategies to control the COVID-19 pandemic and help the Ministry of Health to better manage and allocate the available vaccine doses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Senegal/epidemiology , Vaccination , Young Adult
7.
J Infect Dis ; 225(2): 199-207, 2022 01 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1634219

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Circulation of seasonal non-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) respiratory viruses with syndromic overlap during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may alter the quality of COVID-19 surveillance, with possible consequences for real-time analysis and delay in implementation of control measures. METHODS: Using a multipathogen susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered (SEIR) transmission model formalizing cocirculation of SARS-CoV-2 and another respiratory virus, we assessed how an outbreak of secondary virus may affect 2 COVID-19 surveillance indicators: testing demand and positivity. Using simulation, we assessed to what extent the use of multiplex polymerase chain reaction tests on a subsample of symptomatic individuals can help correct the observed SARS-CoV-2 percentage positivity and improve surveillance quality. RESULTS: We find that a non-SARS-CoV-2 epidemic strongly increases SARS-CoV-2 daily testing demand and artificially reduces the observed SARS-CoV-2 percentage positivity for the duration of the outbreak. We estimate that performing 1 multiplex test for every 1000 COVID-19 tests on symptomatic individuals could be sufficient to maintain surveillance of other respiratory viruses in the population and correct the observed SARS-CoV-2 percentage positivity. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that cocirculating respiratory viruses can distort SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. Correction of the positivity rate can be achieved by using multiplex polymerase chain reaction tests, and a low number of samples is sufficient to avoid bias in SARS-CoV-2 surveillance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Respiratory System/virology , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction , Pandemics , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sentinel Surveillance
8.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 236, 2022 01 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1621241

ABSTRACT

Healthcare facilities are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 introductions and subsequent nosocomial outbreaks. Antigen rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT) is widely used for population screening, but its health and economic benefits as a reactive response to local surges in outbreak risk are unclear. We simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a long-term care hospital with varying COVID-19 containment measures in place (social distancing, face masks, vaccination). Across scenarios, nosocomial incidence is reduced by up to 40-47% (range of means) with routine symptomatic RT-PCR testing, 59-63% with the addition of a timely round of Ag-RDT screening, and 69-75% with well-timed two-round screening. For the latter, a delay of 4-5 days between the two screening rounds is optimal for transmission prevention. Screening efficacy varies depending on test sensitivity, test type, subpopulations targeted, and community incidence. Efficiency, however, varies primarily depending on underlying outbreak risk, with health-economic benefits scaling by orders of magnitude depending on the COVID-19 containment measures in place.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/transmission , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Epidemiological Monitoring , Hospitals , Humans , Risk Factors , Vaccination
9.
Euro Surveill ; 26(48)2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613503

ABSTRACT

BackgroundMany countries implemented national lockdowns to contain the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 and avoid overburdening healthcare capacity.AimWe aimed to quantify how the French lockdown impacted population mixing, contact patterns and behaviours.MethodsWe conducted an online survey using convenience sampling and collected information from participants aged 18 years and older between 10 April and 28 April 2020.ResultAmong the 42,036 survey participants, 72% normally worked outside their home, and of these, 68% changed to telework during lockdown and 17% reported being unemployed during lockdown. A decrease in public transport use was reported from 37% to 2%. Participants reported increased frequency of hand washing and changes in greeting behaviour. Wearing masks in public was generally limited. A total of 138,934 contacts were reported, with an average of 3.3 contacts per individual per day; 1.7 in the participants aged 65 years and older compared with 3.6 for younger age groups. This represented a 70% reduction compared with previous surveys, consistent with SARS-CoV2 transmission reduction measured during the lockdown. For those who maintained a professional activity outside home, the frequency of contacts at work dropped by 79%.ConclusionThe lockdown affected the population's behaviour, work, risk perception and contact patterns. The frequency and heterogeneity of contacts, both of which are critical factors in determining how viruses spread, were affected. Such surveys are essential to evaluate the impact of lockdowns more accurately and anticipate epidemic dynamics in these conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , RNA, Viral , Age Factors , Communicable Disease Control , France/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
10.
PeerJ ; 9: e12566, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1551830

ABSTRACT

As in past pandemics, co-circulating pathogens may play a role in the epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In particular, experimental evidence indicates that influenza infection can up-regulate the expression of ACE2-the receptor of SARS-CoV-2 in human cells-and facilitate SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we hypothesized that influenza impacted the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 during the early 2020 epidemic of COVID-19 in Europe. To test this hypothesis, we developed a population-based model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and of COVID-19 mortality, which simultaneously incorporated the impact of non-pharmaceutical control measures and of influenza on the epidemiological dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. Using statistical inference methods based on iterated filtering, we confronted this model with mortality incidence data in four European countries (Belgium, Italy, Norway, and Spain) to systematically test a range of assumptions about the impact of influenza. We found consistent evidence for a 1.8-3.4-fold (uncertainty range across countries: 1.1 to 5.0) average population-level increase in SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with influenza during the period of co-circulation. These estimates remained robust to a variety of alternative assumptions regarding the epidemiological traits of SARS-CoV-2 and the modeled impact of control measures. Although further confirmatory evidence is required, our results suggest that influenza could facilitate the spread and hamper effective control of SARS-CoV-2. More generally, they highlight the possible role of co-circulating pathogens in the epidemiology of COVID-19.

11.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 6895, 2021 11 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537311

ABSTRACT

The shielding of older individuals has been proposed to limit COVID-19 hospitalizations while relaxing general social distancing in the absence of vaccines. Evaluating such approaches requires a deep understanding of transmission dynamics across ages. Here, we use detailed age-specific case and hospitalization data to model the rebound in the French epidemic in summer 2020, characterize age-specific transmission dynamics and critically evaluate different age-targeted intervention measures in the absence of vaccines. We find that while the rebound started in young adults, it reached individuals aged ≥80 y.o. after 4 weeks, despite substantial contact reductions, indicating substantial transmission flows across ages. We derive the contribution of each age group to transmission. While shielding older individuals reduces mortality, it is insufficient to allow major relaxations of social distancing. When the epidemic remains manageable (R close to 1), targeting those most contributing to transmission is better than shielding at-risk individuals. Pandemic control requires an effort from all age groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Child , Child, Preschool , Computer Simulation , Female , France/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Physical Distancing , Young Adult
12.
PLoS Comput Biol ; 17(8): e1009264, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1374131

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 epidemic has forced most countries to impose contact-limiting restrictions at workplaces, universities, schools, and more broadly in our societies. Yet, the effectiveness of these unprecedented interventions in containing the virus spread remain largely unquantified. Here, we develop a simulation study to analyze COVID-19 outbreaks on three real-life contact networks stemming from a workplace, a primary school and a high school in France. Our study provides a fine-grained analysis of the impact of contact-limiting strategies at workplaces, schools and high schools, including: (1) Rotating strategies, in which workers are evenly split into two shifts that alternate on a daily or weekly basis; and (2) On-Off strategies, where the whole group alternates periods of normal work interactions with complete telecommuting. We model epidemics spread in these different setups using a stochastic discrete-time agent-based transmission model that includes the coronavirus most salient features: super-spreaders, infectious asymptomatic individuals, and pre-symptomatic infectious periods. Our study yields clear results: the ranking of the strategies, based on their ability to mitigate epidemic propagation in the network from a first index case, is the same for all network topologies (workplace, primary school and high school). Namely, from best to worst: Rotating week-by-week, Rotating day-by-day, On-Off week-by-week, and On-Off day-by-day. Moreover, our results show that below a certain threshold for the original local reproduction number [Formula: see text] within the network (< 1.52 for primary schools, < 1.30 for the workplace, < 1.38 for the high school, and < 1.55 for the random graph), all four strategies efficiently control outbreak by decreasing effective local reproduction number to [Formula: see text] < 1. These results can provide guidance for public health decisions related to telecommuting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Teleworking , Basic Reproduction Number/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Computational Biology , Computer Simulation , Contact Tracing , Education, Distance/methods , Education, Distance/statistics & numerical data , France/epidemiology , Humans , Models, Biological , Personnel Staffing and Scheduling/statistics & numerical data , Public Health , Schools , Stochastic Processes , Teleworking/statistics & numerical data , Time Factors , Workplace
14.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(1): 141-143, 2021 01 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1045886

ABSTRACT

To date, no specific estimate of R0 for SARS-CoV-2 is available for healthcare settings. Using interindividual contact data, we highlight that R0 estimates from the community cannot translate directly to healthcare settings, with pre-pandemic R0 values ranging 1.3-7.7 in 3 illustrative healthcare institutions. This has implications for nosocomial COVID-19 control.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Basic Reproduction Number , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Pandemics
15.
BMC Med ; 18(1): 386, 2020 12 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-962808

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are vulnerable to outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Timely epidemiological surveillance is essential for outbreak response, but is complicated by a high proportion of silent (non-symptomatic) infections and limited testing resources. METHODS: We used a stochastic, individual-based model to simulate transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) along detailed inter-individual contact networks describing patient-staff interactions in a real LTCF setting. We simulated distribution of nasopharyngeal swabs and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests using clinical and demographic indications and evaluated the efficacy and resource-efficiency of a range of surveillance strategies, including group testing (sample pooling) and testing cascades, which couple (i) testing for multiple indications (symptoms, admission) with (ii) random daily testing. RESULTS: In the baseline scenario, randomly introducing a silent SARS-CoV-2 infection into a 170-bed LTCF led to large outbreaks, with a cumulative 86 (95% uncertainty interval 6-224) infections after 3 weeks of unmitigated transmission. Efficacy of symptom-based screening was limited by lags to symptom onset and silent asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission. Across scenarios, testing upon admission detected just 34-66% of patients infected upon LTCF entry, and also missed potential introductions from staff. Random daily testing was more effective when targeting patients than staff, but was overall an inefficient use of limited resources. At high testing capacity (> 10 tests/100 beds/day), cascades were most effective, with a 19-36% probability of detecting outbreaks prior to any nosocomial transmission, and 26-46% prior to first onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Conversely, at low capacity (< 2 tests/100 beds/day), group testing strategies detected outbreaks earliest. Pooling randomly selected patients in a daily group test was most likely to detect outbreaks prior to first symptom onset (16-27%), while pooling patients and staff expressing any COVID-like symptoms was the most efficient means to improve surveillance given resource limitations, compared to the reference requiring only 6-9 additional tests and 11-28 additional swabs to detect outbreaks 1-6 days earlier, prior to an additional 11-22 infections. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 surveillance is challenged by delayed or absent clinical symptoms and imperfect diagnostic sensitivity of standard RT-PCR tests. In our analysis, group testing was the most effective and efficient COVID-19 surveillance strategy for resource-limited LTCFs. Testing cascades were even more effective given ample testing resources. Increasing testing capacity and updating surveillance protocols accordingly could facilitate earlier detection of emerging outbreaks, informing a need for urgent intervention in settings with ongoing nosocomial transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Long-Term Care/organization & administration , Public Health Surveillance/methods , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Science ; 369(6500): 208-211, 2020 07 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-260345

ABSTRACT

France has been heavily affected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic and went into lockdown on 17 March 2020. Using models applied to hospital and death data, we estimate the impact of the lockdown and current population immunity. We find that 2.9% of infected individuals are hospitalized and 0.5% of those infected die (95% credible interval: 0.3 to 0.9%), ranging from 0.001% in those under 20 years of age to 8.3% in those 80 years of age or older. Across all ages, men are more likely to be hospitalized, enter intensive care, and die than women. The lockdown reduced the reproductive number from 2.90 to 0.67 (77% reduction). By 11 May 2020, when interventions are scheduled to be eased, we project that 3.5 million people (range: 2.1 million to 6.0 million), or 5.3% of the population (range: 3.3 to 9.3%), will have been infected. Population immunity appears to be insufficient to avoid a second wave if all control measures are released at the end of the lockdown.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Quarantine , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Cost of Illness , Critical Care , Female , France/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Immunity , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL