Nicholas G. Davies’s research while affiliated with London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and other places

On March 11th 2020, the World Health Organization characterised COVID-19 as a pandemic. Responses to containing the spread of the virus have relied heavily on policies involving restricting contact between people. Evolving policies regarding shielding and individual choices about restricting social contact will rely heavily on perceived risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. In order to make informed decisions, both individual and collective, good predictive models are required. For outcomes related to an infectious disease, the performance of any risk prediction model will depend heavily on the underlying prevalence of infection in the population of interest. Incorporating measures of how this changes over time may result in important improvements in prediction model performance. This protocol reports details of a planned study to explore the extent to which incorporating time-varying measures of infection burden over time improves the quality of risk prediction models for COVID-19 death in a large population of adult patients in England. To achieve this aim, we will compare the performance of different modelling approaches to risk prediction, including static cohort approaches typically used in chronic disease settings and landmarking approaches incorporating time-varying measures of infection prevalence and policy change, using COVID-19 related deaths data linked to longitudinal primary care electronic health records data within the OpenSAFELY secure analytics platform.

The spectrum, pathophysiology, and recovery trajectory of persistent post-COVID-19 cognitive deficits are unknown, limiting our ability to develop prevention and treatment strategies. We report the one-year cognitive, serum biomarker, and neuroimaging findings from a prospective, national study of cognition in 351 COVID-19 patients who had required hospitalisation, compared to 2,927 normative matched controls. Cognitive deficits were global and associated with elevated brain injury markers, and reduced anterior cingulate cortex volume one year after COVID-19. The severity of the initial infective insult, post-acute psychiatric symptoms, and a history of encephalopathy were associated with greatest deficits. There was strong concordance between subjective and objective cognitive deficits. Longitudinal follow-up in 106 patients demonstrated a trend toward recovery. Together, these findings support the hypothesis that brain injury in moderate to severe COVID-19 may be immune-mediated, and should guide the development of therapeutic strategies.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009098.].

Understanding and accurately estimating epidemiological delay distributions is important for public health policy. These estimates directly influence epidemic situational awareness, control strategies, and resource allocation. In this study, we explore challenges in estimating these distributions, including truncation, interval censoring, and dynamical biases. Despite their importance, these issues are frequently overlooked in the current literature, often resulting in biased conclusions. This study aims to shed light on these challenges, providing valuable insights for epidemiologists and infectious disease modellers. Our work motivates comprehensive approaches for accounting for these issues based on the underlying theoretical concepts. We also discuss simpler methods that are widely used, which do not fully account for known biases. We evaluate the statistical performance of these methods using simulated exponential growth and epidemic scenarios informed by data from the 2014-2016 Sierra Leone Ebola virus disease epidemic. Our findings highlight that using simpler methods can lead to biased estimates of vital epidemiological parameters. An approximate-latent-variable method emerges as the best overall performer, while an efficient, widely implemented interval-reduced-censoring-and-truncation method was only slightly worse. Other methods, such as a joint-primary-incidence-and-delay method and a dynamic-correction method, demonstrated good performance under certain conditions, although they have inherent limitations and may not be the best choice for more complex problems. Despite presenting a range of methods that performed well in the contexts we evaluated, residual biases persisted, predominantly due to the simplifying assumption that the distribution of event time within the censoring interval follows a uniform distribution; instead, this distribution should depend on epidemic dynamics. However, in realistic scenarios with daily censoring, these biases appeared minimal. This study underscores the need for caution when estimating epidemiological delay distributions in real-time, provides an overview of the theory that practitioners need to keep in mind when doing so with useful tools to avoid common methodological errors, and points towards areas for future research.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic both relied and placed significant burdens on the experts involved from research and public health sectors. The sustained high pressure of a pandemic on responders, such as healthcare workers, can lead to lasting psychological impacts including acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, burnout, and moral injury, which can impact individual wellbeing and productivity. Methods As members of the infectious disease modelling community, we convened a reflective workshop to understand the professional and personal impacts of response work on our community and to propose recommendations for future epidemic responses. The attendees represented a range of career stages, institutions, and disciplines. This piece was collectively produced by those present at the session based on our collective experiences. Results Key issues we identified at the workshop were lack of institutional support, insecure contracts, unequal credit and recognition, and mental health impacts. Our recommendations include rewarding impactful work, fostering academia-public health collaboration, decreasing dependence on key individuals by developing teams, increasing transparency in decision-making, and implementing sustainable work practices. Conclusions Despite limitations in representation, this workshop provided valuable insights into the UK COVID-19 modelling experience and guidance for future public health crises. Recognising and addressing the issues highlighted is crucial, in our view, for ensuring the effectiveness of epidemic response work in the future.

To understand neurological complications of COVID-19 better both acutely and for recovery, we measured markers of brain injury, inflammatory mediators, and autoantibodies in 203 hospitalised participants; 111 with acute sera (1–11 days post-admission) and 92 convalescent sera (56 with COVID-19-associated neurological diagnoses). Here we show that compared to 60 uninfected controls, tTau, GFAP, NfL, and UCH-L1 are increased with COVID-19 infection at acute timepoints and NfL and GFAP are significantly higher in participants with neurological complications. Inflammatory mediators (IL-6, IL-12p40, HGF, M-CSF, CCL2, and IL-1RA) are associated with both altered consciousness and markers of brain injury. Autoantibodies are more common in COVID-19 than controls and some (including against MYL7, UCH-L1, and GRIN3B) are more frequent with altered consciousness. Additionally, convalescent participants with neurological complications show elevated GFAP and NfL, unrelated to attenuated systemic inflammatory mediators and to autoantibody responses. Overall, neurological complications of COVID-19 are associated with evidence of neuroglial injury in both acute and late disease and these correlate with dysregulated innate and adaptive immune responses acutely.

The COVID-19 pandemic both relied and placed significant burdens on the experts involved from research and public health sectors. The sustained high pressure of a pandemic on responders, such as healthcare workers, can lead to lasting psychological impacts including acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, burnout, and moral injury, which can impact individual wellbeing and productivity. As members of the infectious disease modelling community, we convened a reflective workshop to understand the professional and personal impacts of response work on our community and to propose recommendations for future epidemic responses. The attendees represented a range of career stages, institutions, and disciplines. This piece was collectively produced by those present at the session based on our collective experiences. Key issues we identified at the workshop were lack of institutional support, insecure contracts, unequal credit and recognition, and mental health impacts. Our recommendations include rewarding impactful work, fostering academia-public health collaboration, decreasing dependence on key individuals by developing teams, increasing transparency in decision-making, and implementing sustainable work practices. Despite limitations in representation, this workshop provided valuable insights into the UK COVID-19 modelling experience and guidance for future public health crises. Recognising and addressing the issues highlighted here is crucial, in our view, for ensuring the effectiveness of epidemic response work in the future.

Background Forecasting healthcare demand is essential in epidemic settings, both to inform situational awareness and facilitate resource planning. Ideally, forecasts should be robust across time and locations. During the COVID-19 pandemic in England, it is an ongoing concern that demand for hospital care for COVID-19 patients in England will exceed available resources. Methods We made weekly forecasts of daily COVID-19 hospital admissions for National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England between August 2020 and April 2021 using three disease-agnostic forecasting models: a mean ensemble of autoregressive time series models, a linear regression model with 7-day-lagged local cases as a predictor, and a scaled convolution of local cases and a delay distribution. We compared their point and probabilistic accuracy to a mean-ensemble of them all and to a simple baseline model of no change from the last day of admissions. We measured predictive performance using the weighted interval score (WIS) and considered how this changed in different scenarios (the length of the predictive horizon, the date on which the forecast was made, and by location), as well as how much admissions forecasts improved when future cases were known. Results All models outperformed the baseline in the majority of scenarios. Forecasting accuracy varied by forecast date and location, depending on the trajectory of the outbreak, and all individual models had instances where they were the top- or bottom-ranked model. Forecasts produced by the mean-ensemble were both the most accurate and most consistently accurate forecasts amongst all the models considered. Forecasting accuracy was improved when using future observed, rather than forecast, cases, especially at longer forecast horizons. Conclusions Assuming no change in current admissions is rarely better than including at least a trend. Using confirmed COVID-19 cases as a predictor can improve admissions forecasts in some scenarios, but this is variable and depends on the ability to make consistently good case forecasts. However, ensemble forecasts can make forecasts that make consistently more accurate forecasts across time and locations. Given minimal requirements on data and computation, our admissions forecasting ensemble could be used to anticipate healthcare needs in future epidemic or pandemic settings.

Background SARS-CoV-2 is known to transmit in hospital settings, but the contribution of infections acquired in hospitals to the epidemic at a national scale is unknown. Methods We used comprehensive national English datasets to determine the number of COVID-19 patients with identified hospital-acquired infections (with symptom onset > 7 days after admission and before discharge) in acute English hospitals up to August 2020. As patients may leave the hospital prior to detection of infection or have rapid symptom onset, we combined measures of the length of stay and the incubation period distribution to estimate how many hospital-acquired infections may have been missed. We used simulations to estimate the total number (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections, as well as infections due to onward community transmission from missed hospital-acquired infections, to 31st July 2020. Results In our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English hospitals with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired. We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20–41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified, with up to 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14.1–15.8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19 potentially linked to hospital transmission. We estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200–16,400) or 20.1% (19.2–20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. Conclusions Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the “first wave” in England, but less than 1% of all infections in England. Using time to symptom onset from admission for inpatients as a detection method likely misses a substantial proportion (> 60%) of hospital-acquired infections.