Modeling robust COVID-19 intensive care unit occupancy thresholds for imposing mitigation to prevent exceeding capacities

In non-pharmaceutical management of COVID-19, occupancy of intensive care units (ICU) is often used as an indicator to inform when to intensify mitigation and thus reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, strain on ICUs, and deaths. However, ICU occupancy thresholds at which action should be taken are often selected arbitrarily. We propose a quantitative approach using mathematical modeling to identify ICU occupancy thresholds at which mitigation should be triggered to avoid exceeding the ICU capacity available for COVID-19 patients and demonstrate this approach for the United States city of Chicago. We used a stochastic compartmental model to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission and disease progression, including critical cases that would require intensive care. We calibrated the model using daily COVID-19 ICU and hospital census data between March and August 2020. We projected various possible ICU occupancy trajectories from September 2020 to May 2021 with two possible levels of transmission increase and uncertainty in core model parameters. The effect of combined mitigation measures was modeled as a decrease in the transmission rate that took effect when projected ICU occupancy reached a specified threshold. We found that mitigation did not immediately eliminate the risk of exceeding ICU capacity. Delaying action by 7 days increased the probability of exceeding ICU capacity by 10–60% and this increase could not be counteracted by stronger mitigation. Even under modest transmission increase, a threshold occupancy no higher than 60% was required when mitigation reduced the reproductive number Rt to just below 1. At higher transmission increase, a threshold of at most 40% was required with mitigation that reduced Rt below 0.75 within the first two weeks after mitigation. Our analysis demonstrates a quantitative approach for the selection of ICU occupancy thresholds that considers parameter uncertainty and compares relevant mitigation and transmission scenarios. An appropriate threshold will depend on the location, number of ICU beds available for COVID-19, available mitigation options, feasible mitigation strengths, and tolerated durations of intensified mitigation.

Modeling robust COVID-19 intensive care unit occupancy thresholds for imposing mitigation to prevent exceeding capacities.

In non-pharmaceutical management of COVID-19, occupancy of intensive care units (ICU) is often used as an indicator to inform when to intensify mitigation and thus reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, strain on ICUs, and deaths. However, ICU occupancy thresholds at which action should be taken are often selected arbitrarily. We propose a quantitative approach using mathematical modeling to identify ICU occupancy thresholds at which mitigation should be triggered to avoid exceeding the ICU capacity available for COVID-19 patients and demonstrate this approach for the United States city of Chicago. We used a stochastic compartmental model to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission and disease progression, including critical cases that would require intensive care. We calibrated the model using daily COVID-19 ICU and hospital census data between March and August 2020. We projected various possible ICU occupancy trajectories from September 2020 to May 2021 with two possible levels of transmission increase and uncertainty in core model parameters. The effect of combined mitigation measures was modeled as a decrease in the transmission rate that took effect when projected ICU occupancy reached a specified threshold. We found that mitigation did not immediately eliminate the risk of exceeding ICU capacity. Delaying action by 7 days increased the probability of exceeding ICU capacity by 10-60% and this increase could not be counteracted by stronger mitigation. Even under modest transmission increase, a threshold occupancy no higher than 60% was required when mitigation reduced the reproductive number Rt to just below 1. At higher transmission increase, a threshold of at most 40% was required with mitigation that reduced Rt below 0.75 within the first two weeks after mitigation. Our analysis demonstrates a quantitative approach for the selection of ICU occupancy thresholds that considers parameter uncertainty and compares relevant mitigation and transmission scenarios. An appropriate threshold will depend on the location, number of ICU beds available for COVID-19, available mitigation options, feasible mitigation strengths, and tolerated durations of intensified mitigation.

Epidemiologically Linked COVID-19 Outbreaks at a Youth Camp and Men's Conference - Illinois, June-July 2021.

On June 30, 2021, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) contacted CDC concerning COVID-19 outbreaks at two events sponsored by the same organization: a 5-day overnight church camp for persons aged 14-18 years and a 2-day men's conference. Neither COVID-19 vaccination nor COVID-19 testing was required before either event. As of August 13, a total of 180 confirmed and probable cases had been identified among attendees at the two events and their close contacts. Among the 122 cases associated with the camp or the conference (primary cases), 18 were in persons who were fully vaccinated, with 38 close contacts. Eight of these 38 close contacts subsequently became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (secondary cases); among the eight close contacts with secondary cases, one half (four) were fully vaccinated. Among the 180 total persons with outbreak-associated cases, five (2.8%) were hospitalized; no deaths occurred. None of the vaccinated persons with cases were hospitalized. Approximately 1,000 persons across at least four states were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 through attendance at these events or through close contact with a person who had a primary case. This investigation underscores the impact of secondary SARS-CoV-2 transmission during large events, such as camps and conferences, when COVID-19 prevention strategies are not implemented. In Los Angeles County, California, during July 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant, unvaccinated residents were five times more likely to be infected and 29 times more likely to be hospitalized from infection than were vaccinated residents (1). Implementation of multiple prevention strategies, including vaccination and nonpharmaceutical interventions such as masking, physical distancing, and screening testing, are critical to preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and serious complications from COVID-19.

Geographic and demographic heterogeneity of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing in Illinois, USA, March to December 2020.

BACKGROUND: Availability of SARS-CoV-2 testing in the United States (U.S.) has fluctuated through the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, including in the U.S. state of Illinois. Despite substantial ramp-up in test volume, access to SARS-CoV-2 testing remains limited, heterogeneous, and insufficient to control spread. METHODS: We compared SARS-CoV-2 testing rates across geographic regions, over time, and by demographic characteristics (i.e., age and racial/ethnic groups) in Illinois during March through December 2020. We compared age-matched case fatality ratios and infection fatality ratios through time to estimate the fraction of SARS-CoV-2 infections that have been detected through diagnostic testing. RESULTS: By the end of 2020, initial geographic differences in testing rates had closed substantially. Case fatality ratios were higher in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic/Latino populations in Illinois relative to non-Hispanic White populations, suggesting that tests were insufficient to accurately capture the true burden of COVID-19 disease in the minority populations during the initial epidemic wave. While testing disparities decreased during 2020, Hispanic/Latino populations consistently remained the least tested at 1.87 tests per 1000 population per day compared with 2.58 and 2.87 for non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White populations, respectively, at the end of 2020. Despite a large expansion in testing since the beginning of the first wave of the epidemic, we estimated that over half (50-80%) of all SARS-CoV-2 infections were not detected by diagnostic testing and continued to evade surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic methods for identifying relatively under-tested geographic regions and demographic groups may enable policymakers to regularly monitor and evaluate the shifting landscape of diagnostic testing, allowing officials to prioritize allocation of testing resources to reduce disparities in COVID-19 burden and eventually reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.