ABSTRACT
Background The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods and Findings We develop a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care to explore the potential public-health impact of a range of different potential therapeutics, under a range of different scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. We find the impact of drugs like dexamethasone (which are delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalisation) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. Conclusions There is a global asymmetry in who is likely to benefit from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have been focussed on hospitalised-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of current and proposed treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods: First, we used a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care pathways to explore the potential impact of dexamethasone - the main treatment currently for hospitalised COVID-19 patients - under scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) the efficacy of dexamethasone in the absence of supportive care. We then fit the model to the observed epidemic trajectory to-date in 165 countries and analysed the potential future impact of dexamethasone in different countries, regions, and country-income strata. Finally, we constructed hypothetical profiles of novel therapeutics based on current trials, and compared the potential impact of each under different circumstances. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. Findings: We find the potential benefit dexamethasone is severely limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). However, therapeutics for different patient populations (in particular, those not in hospital and early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (in particular, reducing disease severity or infectiousness) could have much greater benefits. Such therapeutics would have particular value in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics, even if the efficacy or achievable coverage of such therapeutics is lower in comparison to other types. Interpretation: People in low-income countries will benefit the least from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have focussed on hospitalised-patients with adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have much greater impact. Such therapeutics may be feasible and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority. Funding: None to declare. Declaration of Interest: None to declare.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Patients with strong clinical features of COVID-19 with negative real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 testing are not currently included in official statistics. The scale, characteristics and clinical relevance of this group are thus unknown. We performed a retrospective cohort study in two large London hospitals to characterize the demographic, clinical, and hospitalization outcome characteristics of swab-negative clinical COVID-19 patients. We found 1 in 5 patients with a negative swab and clinical suspicion of COVID-19 received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 within clinical documentation, discharge summary or death certificate. We compared this group to a similar swab positive cohort and found similar demographic composition, symptomology and laboratory findings. Swab-negative clinical COVID-19 patients had better outcomes, with shorter length of hospital stay, reduced need for >60% supplementary oxygen and reduced mortality. Patients with strong clinical features of COVID-19 that are swab-negative are a common clinical challenge. Health systems must recognize and plan for the management of swab-negative patients in their COVID-19 clinical management, infection control policies and epidemiological assessments.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background Hospitals in England have undergone considerable change to address the surge in demand imposed by the COVID-19 epidemic. The impact of this on emergency department (ED) attendances is unknown, especially for non-COVID-19 related emergencies.Methods We calibrated auto-regressive integrated moving average time-series models of ED attendances to Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (ICHNT) using historic (2015–2019) data. Forecasted trends were compared to present year ICHNT data for the period between March 12 (when England implemented the first COVID-19 public health measure) and May 31. We compared ICHTN trends with publicly available regional and national data. Lastly, we compared emergency admissions and in-hospital mortality at ICHNT during the present year to a historic 5-year average.Results ED attendances at ICHNT decreased by 35%, in keeping with the trend for ED attendances across all England regions, which fell by approximately 50%. For ICHNT, the decrease in attendances was mainly amongst those aged < 65 years and those arriving by their own means (e.g. personal or public transport). Increasing distance from postcode of residence to hospital was a significant predictor of reduced attendances. Non-COVID related emergency admissions to hospital after March 12 fell by 48%; there was an indication of a non-significant increase in non-COVID-19 crude mortality risk (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.94–1.37, p = 0.19).Conclusions Our study finds strong evidence that emergency healthcare seeking has drastically changed across the population in England. At ICHNT, we find that a larger proportion arrived by ambulance and that hospitalisation outcomes of non-COVID patients did not differ from previous years. The extent to which these findings relate to ED avoidance behaviours compared to having sought alternative emergency health services outside of hospital remains unknown. National analyses and strategies to streamline emergency services in England going forward are urgently needed.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Physical distancing measures that reduce social contacts have formed a key part of national COVID-19 containment and mitigation strategies. Many Sub-Saharan African nations are now facing increasing numbers of cases of COVID-19 and there is a need to understand what levels of measures may be required to successfully reduce transmission. Methods: We collated epidemiological data along with information on key COVID-19 specific response policies and health system capacity estimates for services needed to treat COVID-19 patients in Senegal. We calibrated an age-structured SEIR model to these data to capture transmission dynamics accounting for demography, contact patterns, hospital capacity and disease severity. We simulated the impact of mitigation and suppression strategies focussed on reducing social contact rates. Results: Senegal acted promptly to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and as a result has reduced the reproduction number from 1.9 (95% CI 1.7-2.2) to 1.3 (95% CI 1.2-1.5), which has slowed but not fully interrupted transmission. We estimate that continued spread is likely to peak in October, and to overwhelm the healthcare system with an estimated 77,400 deaths(95% CI 55,270-100,700). Further reductions in contact rates to suppress transmission (Rt<1) could significantly reduce this burden on healthcare services and improve overall health outcomes. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that Senegal has already significantly reduced transmission. Enhanced physical distancing measures and rapid scale up of hospital capacity is likely to be needed to reduce mortality and protect healthcare infrastructure from high levels of demand.