Two biases in incubation time estimation related to exposure

Vera H. Arntzen,Marta Fiocco,Ronald B. Geskus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-09433-7

IF: 3.7

2024-06-04

BMC Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Estimation of the SARS-CoV-2 incubation time distribution is hampered by incomplete data about infection. We discuss two biases that may result from incorrect handling of such data.

infectious diseases

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Flexible Bayesian estimation of incubation times

Oswaldo Gressani,Andrea Torneri,Niel Hens,Christel Faes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae192

2024-07-10

American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract:Abstract The incubation period is of paramount importance in infectious disease epidemiology as it informs about the transmission potential of a pathogenic organism and helps to plan public health strategies to keep an epidemic outbreak under control. Estimation of the incubation period distribution from reported exposure times and symptom onset times is challenging as the underlying data is coarse. We develop a new Bayesian methodology using Laplacian-P-splines that provides a semi-parametric estimation of the incubation density based on a Langevinized Gibbs sampler. A finite mixture density smoother informs a set of parametric distributions via moment matching and an information criterion arbitrates between competing candidates. Algorithms underlying our method find a natural nest within the EpiLPS package, which has been extended to cover estimation of incubation times. Various simulation scenarios accounting for different levels of data coarseness are considered with encouraging results. Applications to real data on COVID-19, MERS and Mpox reveal results that are in alignment with what has been obtained in recent studies. The proposed flexible approach is an interesting alternative to classic Bayesian parametric methods for estimation of the incubation distribution.

public, environmental & occupational health
Progress on the Incubation Period of COVID-19

Shiyu Wan,Jue Liu,Min Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1360/tb-2020-0698

2021-01-01

Abstract:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. Effective treatments are still lacking. The incubation period of COVID-19 is the period between the infection of an individual by a pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) and the manifestation of the illness or disease. The incubation period is one of the important epidemiological parameters of infectious diseases. The study of the incubation period of COVID-19 is of great significance for better understanding the natural history of the disease, tracing the source of infection, determining the detention, quarantine and isolation of contacts, determining the time of immunization, and making prevention and control measures. This study mainly reviews the progress of the incubation period of COVID-19. In previous studies, a direct calculation or parameter estimation method is usually used to estimate the incubation period, and the commonly used distributions are lognormal distribution, Weibull distribution, Gamma distribution, etc. Due to the differences in the study population, data sources and estimation methods, there are differences in the estimation results of the incubation period of COVID-19 in various studies. The estimated median incubation period for COVID-19 was about 5.9 d (95%CI: 2.98-10.51) and the average incubation period was about 5.7 d (95%CI: 4.3-8.9). The median incubation period for COVID-19 was estimated to be about 5.2 d (95%CI: 3.0-11.9) in studies using the direct calculation method, and about 5.25 d (95%CI: 3.57-8.19) in studies using the parameter estimation method. To calculate the incubation period of COVID-19, it is important to accurately collect the date of exposure and the date of symptoms onset. Due to the diversity of COVID-19 transmission routes and the possibility of multiple exposures to the same source of infection or to different sources of infection, it is often difficult to determine the exact exposure time for some patients, which brings the difficulty to the accurate estimation of the incubation period. The choice of methods depends on the epidemiological data of the study population and application scenarios. For example, in the early stage of an outbreak, when the incubation period data of small samples of infected persons are quickly obtained through field epidemiological investigation, it is advisable to adopt the direct calculation method for rapid estimation and timely guidance for prevention and control measures. As the epidemic progresses, when more epidemiological survey data are available, the parameter estimation method is a better choice. The optimal method can be selected for estimation. Either direct calculation or parameter estimation method, the accuracy of the data is crucial. Therefore, the recall bias should be minimized to obtain relatively accurate data at each key time point. At the same time, a more accurate estimate of the incubation period can be obtained by taking the infector-infected pairs with a clear transmission chain as the study population.
Robust estimation of the incubation period and the time of exposure using γ-divergence

Daisuke Yoneoka,Takayuki Kawashima,Yuta Tanoue,Shuhei Nomura,Akifumi Eguchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2024.2420221

IF: 1.416

2024-11-08

Journal of Applied Statistics

Abstract:Estimating the exposure time to single infectious pathogens and the associated incubation period, based on symptom onset data, is crucial for identifying infection sources and implementing public health interventions. However, data from rapid surveillance systems designed for early outbreak warning often come with outliers originated from individuals who were not directly exposed to the initial source of infection (i.e. tertiary and subsequent infection cases), making the estimation of exposure time challenging. To address this issue, this study uses a three-parameter lognormal distribution and proposes a new γ -divergence-based robust approach for estimating the parameter corresponding to exposure time with a tailored optimization procedure using the majorization-minimization algorithm, which ensures the monotonic decreasing property of the objective function. Comprehensive numerical experiments and real data analyses suggest that our method is superior to conventional methods in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage probability of 95% confidence intervals.

statistics & probability
The unmitigated profile of COVID-19 infectiousness

Ron Sender,Yinon M. Bar-On,Sang Woo Park,Elad Noor,Jonathan Dushoff,Ron Milo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.17.21266051

2021-11-19

Abstract:Abstract Quantifying the temporal dynamics of infectiousness of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for understanding the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and for analyzing the effectiveness of different mitigation strategies. Many studies have tried to use data from the onset of symptoms of infector-infectee pairs to estimate the infectiousness profile of SARS-CoV-2. However, both statistical and epidemiological biases in the data could lead to an underestimation of the duration of infectiousness. We correct for these biases by curating data from the initial outbreak of the pandemic in China (when mitigation steps were still minimal), and find that the infectiousness profile is wider than previously thought. For example, our estimate for the proportion of transmissions occurring 14 days or more after infection is an order of magnitude higher - namely 19% (95% CI 10%-25%). The inferred generation interval distribution is sensitive to the definition of the period of unmitigated transmission, but estimates that rely on later periods are less reliable due to intervention effects. Nonetheless, the results are robust to other factors such as the model, the assumed growth rate and possible bias of the dataset. Knowing the unmitigated infectiousness profile of infected individuals affects estimates of the effectiveness of self-isolation and quarantine of contacts. The framework presented here can help design better quarantine policies in early stages of future epidemics using data from the initial stages of transmission.
Incubation period of COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research

Conor McAloon,Áine Collins,Kevin Hunt,Ann Barber,Andrew W Byrne,Francis Butler,Miriam Casey,John Griffin,Elizabeth Lane,David McEvoy,Patrick Wall,Martin Green,Luke O'Grady,Simon J More

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039652

IF: 3.006

2020-08-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives The aim of this study was to conduct a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of estimates of the incubation period of COVID-19. Design Rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research. Setting International studies on incubation period of COVID-19. Participants Searches were carried out in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Cochrane Library as well as the preprint servers MedRxiv and BioRxiv. Studies were selected for meta-analysis if they reported either the parameters and CIs of the distributions fit to the data, or sufficient information to facilitate calculation of those values. After initial eligibility screening, 24 studies were selected for initial review, nine of these were shortlisted for meta-analysis. Final estimates are from meta-analysis of eight studies. Primary outcome measures Parameters of a lognormal distribution of incubation periods. Results The incubation period distribution may be modelled with a lognormal distribution with pooled mu and sigma parameters (95% CIs) of 1.63 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.75) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.55), respectively. The corresponding mean (95% CIs) was 5.8 (95% CI 5.0 to 6.7) days. It should be noted that uncertainty increases towards the tail of the distribution: the pooled parameter estimates (95% CIs) resulted in a median incubation period of 5.1 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.8) days, whereas the 95th percentile was 11.7 (95% CI 9.7 to 14.2) days. Conclusions The choice of which parameter values are adopted will depend on how the information is used, the associated risks and the perceived consequences of decisions to be taken. These recommendations will need to be revisited once further relevant information becomes available. Accordingly, we present an R Shiny app that facilitates updating these estimates as new data become available.

medicine, general & internal
Estimating the COVID-19 infection rate: Anatomy of an inference problem

Charles F Manski,Francesca Molinari,Charles F. Manski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.04.041

IF: 3.363

2021-01-01

Journal of Econometrics

Abstract:As a consequence of missing data on tests for infection and imperfect accuracy of tests, reported rates of cumulative population infection by the SARS CoV-2 virus are lower than actual rates of infection. Hence, reported rates of severe illness conditional on infection are higher than actual rates. Understanding the time path of the COVID-19 pandemic has been hampered by the absence of bounds on infection rates that are credible and informative. This paper explains the logical problem of bounding these rates and reports illustrative findings, using data from Illinois, New York, and Italy. We combine the data with assumptions on the infection rate in the untested population and on the accuracy of the tests that appear credible in the current context. We find that the infection rate might be substantially higher than reported. We also find that the infection fatality rate in Illinois, New York, and Italy is substantially lower than reported.

economics,social sciences, mathematical methods,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications
Missingness and algorithmic bias: an example from the United States National Outbreak Reporting System, 2009–2019

Emily Diemer,Elena N. Naumova

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-024-00477-2

IF: 3.526

2024-05-09

Journal of Public Health Policy

Abstract:Growing debates about algorithmic bias in public health surveillance lack specific examples. We tested a common assumption that exposure and illness periods coincide and demonstrated how algorithmic bias can arise due to missingness of critical information related to illness and exposure durations. We examined 9407 outbreaks recorded by the United States National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS) from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2019 and detected algorithmic bias, a systematic over- or under-estimation of foodborne disease outbreak (FBDO) durations due to missing start and end dates. For 7037 (75%) FBDOs with complete date–time information, ~ 60% reported that the exposure period ended before the illness period started. For 2079 (87.7%) FBDOs with missing exposure dates, average illness durations were ~ 5.3 times longer ( p < 0.001) than those with complete information, prompting the potential for algorithmic bias. Modern surveillance systems must be equipped with investigative capacities to examine and assess structural data missingness that can lead to bias.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
The importance of the incubation time distribution in compartmental epidemiological models

Eric Rozan,Marcelo N Kuperman,Sebastian Bouzat

2024-03-07

Abstract:This study investigates the utilization of various mathematical models for comprehending and managing outbreaks of infectious diseases, with a specific focus on how different distributions of incubation times influence predictions regarding epidemics. Two methodologies are examined: a compartmental SEnIR ODE model, which represents an enhanced version of the mean-field SEIR model, and a stochastic agent-based complex network model. Our findings demonstrate that the selection of diverse incubation time distributions can result in noteworthy discrepancies in critical epidemic forecasts, highlighting the crucial role of precise modeling in shaping effective public health interventions. The research underscores the necessity of integrating authentic distribution patterns into epidemic modeling to increase its reliability and applicability

Adaptation and Self-Organizing Systems,Populations and Evolution
Semiparametric regression analysis of doubly-censored data with applications to incubation period estimation

Kin Yau Wong,Qingning Zhou,Tao Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-022-09567-3

2022-07-15

Lifetime Data Analysis

Abstract:The incubation period is a key characteristic of an infectious disease. In the outbreak of a novel infectious disease, accurate evaluation of the incubation period distribution is critical for designing effective prevention and control measures . Estimation of the incubation period distribution based on limited information from retrospective inspection of infected cases is highly challenging due to censoring and truncation. In this paper, we consider a semiparametric regression model for the incubation period and propose a sieve maximum likelihood approach for estimation based on the symptom onset time, travel history, and basic demographics of reported cases. The approach properly accounts for the pandemic growth and selection bias in data collection. We also develop an efficient computation method and establish the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimators. We demonstrate the feasibility and advantages of the proposed methods through extensive simulation studies and provide an application to a dataset on the outbreak of COVID-19.

statistics & probability,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications
Impact of unequal testing on vaccine effectiveness estimates across two study designs: a simulation study

Korryn Bodner,Linwei Wang,Rafal Kustra,Jeffrey C Kwong,Beate Sander,Hind Sbihi,Michael A Irvine,Sharmistha Mishra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.27.24312655

2024-08-28

Abstract:Observational studies are essential for measuring vaccine effectiveness. Recent research has raised concerns about how a relationship between testing and vaccination may affect estimates of vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection (symptomatic VE). Using an agent-based network model and SARS-CoV-2 as an example, we investigated how differences in the likelihood of testing by vaccination could influence estimates of symptomatic VE across two common study designs: retrospective cohort and test-negative design. First, we measured the influence of unequal testing on symptomatic VE estimates across study designs and sampling periods. Next, we investigated if the magnitude of bias in VE estimates from unequal testing was shaped by the level of immune escape (vaccine efficacy against susceptibility and against infectiousness) and underlying epidemic potential (probability of transmission). We found that unequal testing led to larger biases in the cohort design than the test-negative design and that biases were largest with lower efficacy against susceptibility. We also found the magnitude of bias was moderated by the sampling period, efficacy against infectiousness, and probability of transmission, with more pronounced moderating effects in the test-negative design. Our study illustrates that VE estimates across study designs require careful interpretation, especially in the presence of epidemic and immunological heterogeneity.
Estimating actual SARS-CoV-2 infections from secondary data

Wolfgang Rauch,Hannes Schenk,Nikolaus Rauch,Matthias Harders,Herbert Oberacher,Heribert Insam,Rudolf Markt,Norbert Kreuzinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57238-0

IF: 4.6

2024-03-21

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Eminent in pandemic management is accurate information on infection dynamics to plan for timely installation of control measures and vaccination campaigns. Despite huge efforts in diagnostic testing of individuals, the underestimation of the actual number of SARS-CoV-2 infections remains significant due to the large number of undocumented cases. In this paper we demonstrate and compare three methods to estimate the dynamics of true infections based on secondary data i.e., (a) test positivity, (b) infection fatality and (c) wastewater monitoring. The concept is tested with Austrian data on a national basis for the period of April 2020 to December 2022. Further, we use the results of prevalence studies from the same period to generate (upper and lower bounds of) credible intervals for true infections for four data points. Model parameters are subsequently estimated by applying Approximate Bayesian Computation—rejection sampling and Genetic Algorithms. The method is then validated for the case study Vienna. We find that all three methods yield fairly similar results for estimating the true number of infections, which supports the idea that all three datasets contain similar baseline information. None of them is considered superior, as their advantages and shortcomings depend on the specific case study at hand.

multidisciplinary sciences
Addressing bias in the definition of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection: implications for underestimation

Hiam Chemaitelly,Houssein H. Ayoub,Patrick Tang,Hadi M. Yassine,Asmaa A. Al Thani,Mohammad R. Hasan,Peter Coyle,Zaina Al-Kanaani,Einas Al-Kuwari,Andrew Jeremijenko,Anvar Hassan Kaleeckal,Ali Nizar Latif,Riyazuddin Mohammad Shaik,Hanan F. Abdul-Rahim,Gheyath K. Nasrallah,Mohamed Ghaith Al-Kuwari,Adeel A. Butt,Hamad Eid Al-Romaihi,Mohamed H. Al-Thani,Abdullatif Al-Khal,Roberto Bertollini,Laith J. Abu-Raddad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1363045

IF: 3.9

2024-03-11

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Introduction Reinfections are increasingly becoming a feature in the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, accurately defining reinfection poses methodological challenges. Conventionally, reinfection is defined as a positive test occurring at least 90 days after a previous infection diagnosis. Yet, this extended time window may lead to an underestimation of reinfection occurrences. This study investigated the prospect of adopting an alternative, shorter time window for defining reinfection. Methods A longitudinal study was conducted to assess the incidence of reinfections in the total population of Qatar, from February 28, 2020 to November 20, 2023. The assessment considered a range of time windows for defining reinfection, spanning from 1 day to 180 days. Subgroup analyses comparing first versus repeat reinfections and a sensitivity analysis, focusing exclusively on individuals who underwent frequent testing, were performed. Results The relationship between the number of reinfections in the population and the duration of the time window used to define reinfection revealed two distinct dynamical domains. Within the initial 15 days post-infection diagnosis, almost all positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 were attributed to the original infection. However, surpassing the 30-day post-infection threshold, nearly all positive tests were attributed to reinfections. A 40-day time window emerged as a sufficiently conservative definition for reinfection. By setting the time window at 40 days, the estimated number of reinfections in the population increased from 84,565 to 88,384, compared to the 90-day time window. The maximum observed reinfections were 6 and 4 for the 40-day and 90-day time windows, respectively. The 40-day time window was appropriate for defining reinfection, irrespective of whether it was the first, second, third, or fourth occurrence. The sensitivity analysis, confined to high testers exclusively, replicated similar patterns and results. Discussion A 40-day time window is optimal for defining reinfection, providing an informed alternative to the conventional 90-day time window. Reinfections are prevalent, with some individuals experiencing multiple instances since the onset of the pandemic.

medicine, general & internal
On Identifying and Mitigating Bias in the Estimation of the COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate

Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos,Reese Pathak,Rohit Varma,Michael I. Jordan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.f01ee285

2020-06-15

Abstract:The relative case fatality rates (CFRs) between groups and countries are key measures of relative risk that guide policy decisions regarding scarce medical resource allocation during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In the middle of an active outbreak when surveillance data is the primary source of information, estimating these quantities involves compensating for competing biases in time series of deaths, cases, and recoveries. These include time- and severity- dependent reporting of cases as well as time lags in observed patient outcomes. In the context of COVID-19 CFR estimation, we survey such biases and their potential significance. Further, we analyze theoretically the effect of certain biases, like preferential reporting of fatal cases, on naive estimators of CFR. We provide a partially corrected estimator of these naive estimates that accounts for time lag and imperfect reporting of deaths and recoveries. We show that collection of randomized data by testing the contacts of infectious individuals regardless of the presence of symptoms would mitigate bias by limiting the covariance between diagnosis and death. Our analysis is supplemented by theoretical and numerical results and a simple and fast open-source codebase at <a class="link-external link-https" href="https://github.com/aangelopoulos/cfr-covid-19" rel="external noopener nofollow">this https URL</a> .

Quantitative Methods,Populations and Evolution
Time-lag bias induced by unobserved heterogeneity: comparing treated patients to controls with a different start of follow-up

Rik van Eekelen,Patrick M.M. Bossuyt,Nan van Geloven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.07685

2024-06-07

Abstract:In comparative effectiveness research, treated and control patients might have a different start of follow-up as treatment is often started later in the disease trajectory. This typically occurs when data from treated and controls are not collected within the same source. Only patients who did not yet experience the event of interest whilst in the control condition end up in the treatment data source. In case of unobserved heterogeneity, these treated patients will have a lower average risk than the controls. We illustrate how failing to account for this time-lag between treated and controls leads to bias in the estimated treatment effect. We define estimands and time axes, then explore five methods to adjust for this time-lag bias by utilising the time between diagnosis and treatment initiation in different ways. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate whether these methods reduce the bias and then applied the methods to a comparison between fertility patients treated with insemination and similar but untreated patients. We conclude that time-lag bias can be vast and that the time between diagnosis and treatment initiation should be taken into account in the analysis to respect the chronology of the disease and treatment trajectory.

Methodology
Estimation of the basic reproduction number of COVID-19 from the incubation period distribution

Lasko Basnarkov,Igor Tomovski,Florin Avram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-022-00650-2

Abstract:The estimates of the future course of spreading of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are frequently based on Markovian models in which the duration of residence in any compartment is exponentially distributed. Accordingly, the basic reproduction number R 0 is also determined from formulae where it is related to the parameters of such models. The observations show that the start of infectivity of an individual appears nearly at the same time as the onset of symptoms, while the distribution of the incubation period is not an exponential. Therefore, we propose a method for estimation of R 0 for COVID-19 based on the empirical incubation period distribution and assumed very short infectivity period that lasts only few days around the onset of symptoms. We illustrate this venerable approach to estimate R 0 for six major European countries in the first wave of the epidemic. The calculations show that even if the infectivity starts 2 days before the onset of symptoms and stops instantly when they appear (immediate isolation), the value of R 0 is larger than that from the classical, SIR model. For more realistic cases, when only individuals with mild symptoms spread the virus for few days after onset of symptoms, the respective values are even larger. This implies that calculations of R 0 and other characteristics of spreading of COVID-19 based on the classical, Markovian approaches should be taken very cautiously.
Refined estimate of the incubation period of severe acute respiratory syndrome and related influencing factors.

Quan-Cai Cai,Qin-Feng Xu,Jian-Ming Xu,Qiang Guo,Xiang Cheng,Gen-Ming Zhao,Qing-Wen Sun,Jian Lu,Qing-Wu Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj034

2006-01-01

American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract:Many epidemiologists have agreed that a refined estimate of the incubation period of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) would need a sample size of about 200 cases and appropriate statistical methods enabling the inclusion of cases with defined periods of exposure. However, no such studies have been reported so far. Besides, determinants of the SARS incubation period remain unclear. In this study, 209 probable SARS cases with documented episodes of exposure between March 1 and May 31, 2003, in mainland China were included. A nonparametric method was used to analyze these data with defined periods of exposure to obtain the refined estimate of the SARS incubation period. Furthermore, the authors also explored the influence of various factors on the SARS incubation period by analysis of variance, linear regression analysis, and analysis of covariance. The estimates of mean and variance of the SARS incubation period were 5.29 days and 12.33 days(2), respectively; 90% of patients would have an incubation period of less than 11.58 days with a probability of 0.8, and 99% of patients would have an incubation of less than 22.22 days with a probability of 0.9. The affected area showed a highly significant effect on the incubation period (p < 0.001), but the contact pattern, occupation, gender, and age did not.
Inferring time-varying generation time, serial interval, and incubation period distributions for COVID-19

Dongxuan Chen,Yiu-Chung Lau,Xiao-Ke Xu,Lin Wang,Zhanwei Du,Tim K. Tsang,Peng Wu,Eric H. Y. Lau,Jacco Wallinga,Benjamin J. Cowling,Sheikh Taslim Ali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35496-8

IF: 16.6

2022-12-13

Nature Communications

Abstract:Abstract The generation time distribution, reflecting the time between successive infections in transmission chains, is a key epidemiological parameter for describing COVID-19 transmission dynamics. However, because exact infection times are rarely known, it is often approximated by the serial interval distribution. This approximation holds under the assumption that infectors and infectees share the same incubation period distribution, which may not always be true. We estimated incubation period and serial interval distributions using 629 transmission pairs reconstructed by investigating 2989 confirmed cases in China in January-February 2020, and developed an inferential framework to estimate the generation time distribution that accounts for variation over time due to changes in epidemiology, sampling biases and public health and social measures. We identified substantial reductions over time in the serial interval and generation time distributions. Our proposed method provides more reliable estimation of the temporal variation in the generation time distribution, improving assessment of transmission dynamics.

multidisciplinary sciences
Adjusting Coronavirus prevalence estimates for laboratory test kit error

Christopher Sempos,Lu Tian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.11.20098202

2020-05-18

Abstract:Testing representative populations to determine the prevalence or percent of the population with active SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) infection and/or antibodies to infection is being recommended as essential for making public policy decisions to open-up or to continue enforcing national, state and local government rules to shelter-in-place. However, all laboratory tests are imperfect and have estimates of sensitivity and specificity less than 100% - in some cases considerably less than 100%. That error will lead to biased prevalence estimates. If the true prevalence of COVID-19 is low, possibly in the range of 1-5%, then testing error will lead to a constant background of bias that will most likely be larger and possibly much larger than the true prevalence itself. As a result, what is needed is a method for adjusting prevalence estimates for testing error. In this paper we outline methods for adjusting prevalence estimates for testing error both prospectively in studies being planned and retrospectively in studies that have been conducted. The methods if employed would also help to harmonize study results within countries and around the world. Adjustment can lead to more accurate prevalence estimates and to better policy decisions.
Refining Estimation of the Instantaneous Reproduction Number During Early Pandemic Stages: Addressing Case-Reporting Variability and Serial Interval Uncertainty

Gary Hettinger,David Rubin,Jing Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae356

2024-09-11

Abstract:During infectious disease outbreaks, estimates for the instantaneous reproduction number, R(t), are essential for understanding transmission dynamics. This study develops and analyzes new methodology to improve estimation of R(t) when observed case counts are subject to reporting patterns and available serial interval estimates are subject to uncertainty and non-representativeness. Specifically, we developed a Bayesian time-since-infection model with layers to adjust for reporting measurement error, integrate multiple candidate serial interval estimates, and estimate transmission with an autoregressive time-series model incorporating factors relevant to transmission. Additionally, we provide practical tools to identify reporting patterns and determine when to smooth case counts for more usable R(t) estimates. We evaluated model performance relative to widely adopted methodology by simulating outbreak data, finding improved R(t) estimation with the proposed methodology. We also used 2020 COVID-19 data to analyze transmission trends and predictors, identifying strong day-of-week and social distancing effects that subsequently reduced estimate volatility. In addition to new approaches for addressing serial interval uncertainty and incorporating transmission predictor information, this study provides an alternative approach for addressing case-reporting patterns without delaying detection or smoothing over relevant transmission signals. These tools and findings may be used or built upon for current and future outbreaks.
Factors Influencing Background Incidence Rate Calculation: Systematic Empirical Evaluation Across an International Network of Observational Databases

Anna Ostropolets,Xintong Li,Rupa Makadia,Gowtham Rao,Peter R. Rijnbeek,Talita Duarte-Salles,Anthony G. Sena,Azza Shaoibi,Marc A. Suchard,Patrick B. Ryan,Daniel Prieto-Alhambra,George Hripcsak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.814198

IF: 5.6

2022-04-26

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Objective: Background incidence rates are routinely used in safety studies to evaluate an association of an exposure and outcome. Systematic research on sensitivity of rates to the choice of the study parameters is lacking. Materials and Methods: We used 12 data sources to systematically examine the influence of age, race, sex, database, time-at-risk, season and year, prior observation and clean window on incidence rates using 15 adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines as an example. For binary comparisons we calculated incidence rate ratios and performed random-effect meta-analysis. Results: We observed a wide variation of background rates that goes well beyond age and database effects previously observed. While rates vary up to a factor of 1,000 across age groups, even after adjusting for age and sex, the study showed residual bias due to the other parameters. Rates were highly influenced by the choice of anchoring (e.g., health visit, vaccination, or arbitrary date) for the time-at-risk start . Anchoring on a healthcare encounter yielded higher incidence comparing to a random date, especially for short time-at-risk. Incidence rates were highly influenced by the choice of the database (varying by up to a factor of 100), clean window choice and time-at-risk duration, and less so by secular or seasonal trends. Conclusion: Comparing background to observed rates requires appropriate adjustment and careful time-at-risk start and duration choice. Results should be interpreted in the context of study parameter choices.

pharmacology & pharmacy

Two biases in incubation time estimation related to exposure

Flexible Bayesian estimation of incubation times

Progress on the Incubation Period of COVID-19

Robust estimation of the incubation period and the time of exposure using γ-divergence

The unmitigated profile of COVID-19 infectiousness

Incubation period of COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research

Estimating the COVID-19 infection rate: Anatomy of an inference problem

Missingness and algorithmic bias: an example from the United States National Outbreak Reporting System, 2009–2019

The importance of the incubation time distribution in compartmental epidemiological models

Semiparametric regression analysis of doubly-censored data with applications to incubation period estimation

Impact of unequal testing on vaccine effectiveness estimates across two study designs: a simulation study

Estimating actual SARS-CoV-2 infections from secondary data

Addressing bias in the definition of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection: implications for underestimation

On Identifying and Mitigating Bias in the Estimation of the COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate

Time-lag bias induced by unobserved heterogeneity: comparing treated patients to controls with a different start of follow-up

Estimation of the basic reproduction number of COVID-19 from the incubation period distribution

Refined estimate of the incubation period of severe acute respiratory syndrome and related influencing factors.

Inferring time-varying generation time, serial interval, and incubation period distributions for COVID-19

Adjusting Coronavirus prevalence estimates for laboratory test kit error

Refining Estimation of the Instantaneous Reproduction Number During Early Pandemic Stages: Addressing Case-Reporting Variability and Serial Interval Uncertainty

Factors Influencing Background Incidence Rate Calculation: Systematic Empirical Evaluation Across an International Network of Observational Databases