Monitoring the reproductive number of COVID-19 in France: Comparative estimates from three datasets.

Christophe Bonaldi, Anne Fouillet, Cécile Sommen, Daniel Lévy-Bruhl, Juliette Paireau
Author Information
  1. Christophe Bonaldi: Data Science Division, Santé Publique France, The French Public Health Agency, Saint Maurice, France. ORCID
  2. Anne Fouillet: Data Science Division, Santé Publique France, The French Public Health Agency, Saint Maurice, France.
  3. Cécile Sommen: Data Science Division, Santé Publique France, The French Public Health Agency, Saint Maurice, France.
  4. Daniel Lévy-Bruhl: Infectious Diseases Division, Santé Publique France, The French Public Health Agency, Saint Maurice, France.
  5. Juliette Paireau: Infectious Diseases Division, Santé Publique France, The French Public Health Agency, Saint Maurice, France.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effective reproduction number (Rt) quantifies the average number of secondary cases caused by one person with an infectious disease. Near-real-time monitoring of Rt during an outbreak is a major indicator used to monitor changes in disease transmission and assess the effectiveness of interventions. The estimation of Rt usually requires the identification of infected cases in the population, which can prove challenging with the available data, especially when asymptomatic people or with mild symptoms are not usually screened. The purpose of this study was to perform sensitivity analysis of Rt estimates for COVID-19 surveillance in France based on three data sources with different sensitivities and specificities for identifying infected cases.
METHODS: We applied a statistical method developed by Cori et al. to estimate Rt using (1) confirmed cases identified from positive virological tests in the population, (2) suspected cases recorded by a national network of emergency departments, and (3) COVID-19 hospital admissions recorded by a national administrative system to manage hospital organization.
RESULTS: Rt estimates in France from May 27, 2020, to August 12, 2022, showed similar temporal trends regardless of the dataset. Estimates based on the daily number of confirmed cases provided an earlier signal than the two other sources, with an average lag of 3 and 6 days for estimates based on emergency department visits and hospital admissions, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 experience confirmed that monitoring temporal changes in Rt was a key indicator to help the public health authorities control the outbreak in real time. However, gaining access to data on all infected people in the population in order to estimate Rt is not straightforward in practice. As this analysis has shown, the opportunity to use more readily available data to estimate Rt trends, provided that it is highly correlated with the spread of infection, provides a practical solution for monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic and indeed any other epidemic.

References

  1. J R Soc Interface. 2019 Jan 31;16(150):20180670 [PMID: 30958162]
  2. Viruses. 2022 Mar 04;14(3): [PMID: 35336939]
  3. Swiss Med Wkly. 2020 May 04;150:w20271 [PMID: 32365217]
  4. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;20(8):911-919 [PMID: 32353347]
  5. Science. 2020 Aug 28;369(6507):1106-1109 [PMID: 32694200]
  6. PLoS Comput Biol. 2020 Dec 10;16(12):e1008409 [PMID: 33301457]
  7. Epidemics. 2019 Dec;29:100356 [PMID: 31624039]
  8. J Epidemiol Biostat. 2000;5(3):161-8 [PMID: 11051112]
  9. Euro Surveill. 2020 Apr;25(17): [PMID: 32372755]
  10. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 22;274(1609):599-604 [PMID: 17476782]
  11. Euro Surveill. 2022 Feb;27(6): [PMID: 35144721]
  12. Euro Surveill. 2022 Feb;27(6): [PMID: 35144724]
  13. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2021 Jan-Mar;9:157-161 [PMID: 32869006]
  14. Euro Surveill. 2015 May 14;20(19):35-8 [PMID: 25990360]
  15. PLoS Curr. 2015 Feb 10;7: [PMID: 25737806]
  16. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Sep 15;160(6):509-16 [PMID: 15353409]
  17. PLOS Digit Health. 2022 Jun 27;1(6):e0000052 [PMID: 36812522]
  18. Science. 2020 Jul 10;369(6500):208-211 [PMID: 32404476]
  19. JAMA. 2020 May 19;323(19):1915-1923 [PMID: 32275295]
  20. PLoS One. 2022 Feb 10;17(2):e0260150 [PMID: 35143501]
  21. Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Nov 1;178(9):1505-12 [PMID: 24043437]
  22. Math Biosci Eng. 2009 Apr;6(2):261-82 [PMID: 19364152]

MeSH Term

Humans
COVID-19
Pandemics
Basic Reproduction Number
France
Hospitalization

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0RtcasesCOVID-19numberdataestimatesmonitoringinfectedpopulationbasedestimateconfirmedhospitalaveragediseaseoutbreakindicatorchangesusuallyavailablepeopleanalysisFrancethreesourcesrecordednationalemergency3admissionstemporaltrendsprovidedBACKGROUND:effectivereproductionquantifiessecondarycausedonepersoninfectiousNear-real-timemajorusedmonitortransmissionassesseffectivenessinterventionsestimationrequiresidentificationcanprovechallengingespeciallyasymptomaticmildsymptomsscreenedpurposestudyperformsensitivitysurveillancedifferentsensitivitiesspecificitiesidentifyingMETHODS:appliedstatisticalmethoddevelopedCorietalusing1identifiedpositivevirologicaltests2suspectednetworkdepartmentsadministrativesystemmanageorganizationRESULTS:May272020August122022showedsimilarregardlessdatasetEstimatesdailyearliersignaltwolag6daysdepartmentvisitsrespectivelyCONCLUSION:experiencekeyhelppublichealthauthoritiescontrolrealtimeHowevergainingaccessorderstraightforwardpracticeshownopportunityusereadilyhighlycorrelatedspreadinfectionprovidespracticalsolutionpandemicindeedepidemicMonitoringreproductiveFrance:Comparativedatasets

Similar Articles

Cited By