Using ICU data to improve the real-time estimation of the effective reproductive number of the COVID-19 epidemic in 9 European countries

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

1.

We replicate a recent study by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team (Flaxman et al, 2020) that estimates both the effective reproductive number, R t , of the current COVID-19 epidemic in 11 European countries, and the impact of different nonpharmaceutical interventions that have been implemented to try to contain the epidemic, including case isolation, the closure of schools and universities, banning of mass gatherings and/or public events, and most recently, widescale social distancing including local and national lockdowns. The main indicator they use for measuring the evolution of the epidemic is the daily number of deaths by COVID-19 in each country, which is a better statistic than the number of identified cases because it doesn’t depend so much on the testing strategy that is in place in each country at each moment in time.

We improve on their estimation by using data from the number of patients in intensive care, which provides two advantages over the number of deaths: first, it can be used to construct a signal with less bias: as the healthcare system of a country reaches saturation, the mortality rate would be expected to increase, which would bias the estimates of R t and of the impact of measures implemented to contain the epidemic; and second, it is a signal with less lag, as the time from onset of symptoms to ICU admission is shorter than the time from onset to death (on average, 7.5 days shorter). The intensive care signal we use is not just the number of people in ICU, as this would also be biased if the healthcare system has reached saturation (in this case, biased downwards, as admissions are no longer possible when all units are in use). Instead, we estimate the daily demand of intensive care, as the sum of two components: the part that is satisfied (new ICU admissions) and the part that is not (which results in excess mortality).

Thanks to the advantages of this ICU signal in terms of timeliness and bias, we find that most of the countries in the study have already reached R t <1 with 95% confidence (Italy, Spain, Austria, Denmark, France, Norway and Switzerland, but not Belgium or Sweden), whereas the original methodology of Flaxman et al (2020), even with updated data, would only find R t <1 with 95% confidence for Italy and Switzerland .

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.13.20063388: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.