Literature DB >> 32268929

Level of underreporting including underdiagnosis before the first peak of COVID-19 in various countries: Preliminary retrospective results based on wavelets and deterministic modeling.

Steven G Krantz1, Arni S R Srinivasa Rao2,3,4.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32268929      PMCID: PMC7170968          DOI: 10.1017/ice.2020.116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol        ISSN: 0899-823X            Impact factor:   3.254


× No keyword cloud information.
We estimated the underreporting of the novel coronavirus or COVID-19 as of March 9, 2020, in various countries until the first peak occurred in each country that had reported ≥500 cases of COVID-19 as of March 9, 2020. Our retrospective model-based estimations of underreporting (including those due to underdiagnosis) will be helpful in assessing pandemic preparedness. The ratio of reported COVID-19 cases to model-based predictions of COVID-19 for 8 major countries that had reported ≥500 cases up to March 9, 2020, are provided (Table 1, column l). COVID-19 reporting in France, Germany, Italy, and South Korea was comparatively much better than in other countries. For the United States, the data as of March 9, 2020, were not sufficient to provide a robust estimate.
Table 1.

COVID-19 Cases, Demographics, Daily Cases, Growth Rates, and Estimated Underreporting up to March 9, 2020

Countryby No. of Confirmed CasesTotal COVID-19CasesTotalDeathsPopulationDensity(2020),km 2 UrbanPopulation,(2020), %Date Range of Daily New Cases up to the First PeakRange of DailyNew Cases up to the First PeakPopulation Aged 0–14 y (2018), %Population Aged 15–65 y (2018), %Population Aged ≥65 y (2018), %Model-BasedUnderreported &Underdiagnosedup to March 9, 2020No. of People Reportedto the No. Infected
China80,7613,13615361Jan 22–Feb 4259–3,88417.971.210.912.03–89.2 million1 in 149 to1 in 1,104
Italy10,14963120669Feb 22–Mar 958–1,79713.364.022.730,2231 in 4 reported
Iran8,0422915276Feb 21–Mar 613–1,23424.569.36.2266,2131 in 34 reported
South Korea7,5135852782Feb 23–Mar 327–85113.072.614.418,8091 in 4 reported
France1,7843311982Feb 27–Mar 720–29618.062.020.07,9311 in 5 reported
Spain1,690359480Feb 27–Mar 912–55714.766.019.387,4051 in 53 reported
Germany1,458224076Feb 27–Mar 522–28313.665.021.42,2771 in 3 reported
United States874283683Mar 2–Mar 1225–1,65218.765.515.81.21 million(insufficient data)1 in 406 reported(insufficient data)
COVID-19 Cases, Demographics, Daily Cases, Growth Rates, and Estimated Underreporting up to March 9, 2020 According to Situational Report 49, released by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 9, 2020,1 there had been 109,000 cases of COVID-19 and 3,800 related deaths worldwide. Most of these cases (~80,700) were from China and 8 other countries: Italy, South Korea, Iran, France, Germany, Spain, the United States, and Japan. All of these countries have reported ≥500 confirmed cases of COVID-19.1,2 However, identification of possible cases of COVID-19 is arguably more important in controlling high traffic to hospitals and emergency departments.3 Earlier models on COVID-19 did reflect the importance of data collection.4 Actual pandemic preparedness depends on true cases in the population, whether or not they are identified. Preventing transmission to the susceptible from these true cases depends on how well we can assess underreported and underdiagnosed situations promptly. A retrospective analysis of the data will be useful for the next epidemic but not for the current epidemic. Hence, we are proposing to use our methods, which we have been developing in recent years, to provide model-based estimates of underreporting for COVID-19 within a few weeks. New methods using harmonic analysis and wavelets that we are developing—some of them recently accepted—will be of timely use.5 We propose a model-based evaluation of underreporting of coronavirus (COVID-19) in various countries using the methods we recently developed using harmonic analysis,5 that is, to develop full epidemic data from partial data (using a wavelet approach). However, the current article is a preliminary analysis and modeling was done using the data available as of March 9, 2020. These data do not represent the pandemic in its entire scale; such data will need to be reevaluated when the pandemic is completely controlled. However, our predictions for underreporting as of March 9 in a couple of European countries were close to the reported number of COVID-19 cases as more cases surfaced from March 9 to March 16, 2020. Wavelets of reported cases and adjusted estimates with the underreported cases are shown in Figure 1. We also anticipate using other techniques5–9 to further understand the reporting once more data become available.
Figure 1.

Meyer wavelets for various countries for reported (dashed lines) and adjusted data after adjusting for under-reporting listed in the Table 1.

Meyer wavelets for various countries for reported (dashed lines) and adjusted data after adjusting for under-reporting listed in the Table 1.

Data, Methods, and Models

We collected COVID-19 and population data for each country from the World Health Organization (WHO),1 Worldometer,2 and World Bank10 sources. We used population densities, proportion of the population living in urban areas, and populations delineated by 3 age groups: 0–14 years, 15–64 years, and ≥65 years. Furthermore, we considered daily new cases (>10) up to the first reported peak of COVID-19 cases and the corresponding date ranges for all the countries for which such data were available. This range of days varied between 8 and 16 days (Table 1). We use 2 coupled differential equations and , where s(t) and k(t) represent susceptible and infected at time t, and β is the transmission rate that is assumed to be invariant within the range of days for which the infection numbers in each country were computed. The respective β values per 100,000 thousands for the age groups 15–64 years and ≥65+ years considered for various countries are as follows: China: 0.8×1.5  and 1.5, 0.75; Italy: 1.5 and 3.0; Iran: 1.5 and 9.0; South Korea: 2.25 and 4.50; France: 1.50 and 3.0; Spain: 3.0 and 6.0; Germany: 1.5 and 3.0; and the United States: 0.75 and 1.5. The difference between model-predicted numbers and the actual numbers reported within the range were treated as underreported, which includes underdiagnosed cases. We constructed the Meyer wavelets for the reported and adjusted data after adjusting the infected number in the population for underreporting. The Meyer wavelet is a differentiable function, ψ(ω), which is infinitely differentiable in the domain with a function u as follows: Here, u(x) = 0 for x < 0, u(x) = x for x ∈ (0,1), and u(x) = 1 for x1 For further details, please refer to Krantz et al[5] and Krantz.[9] As of March 16, 2020, we did not have enough data on COVID-19 transmissibility rates from infected to uninfected persons based on migration of populations to construct countrywide networks. We also had no clear idea of the duration that SARS-CoV-2 virus remains active on nonliving surfaces such as plastics, metals, paper, etc; thus, we did not consider the interaction between humans and nonliving surfaces. Mathematical modeling can be made more complex by adding more parameters, but caution is necessary to ensure that these studies are well designed and that these parameters use readily available, scientifically collected data. Once we obtain more data on the duration of COVID-19 living on nonliving surfaces, we can build more complex models with more parameters.
  6 in total

1.  Understanding theoretically the impact of reporting of disease cases in epidemiology.

Authors:  Arni S R Srinivasa Rao
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 2.691

2.  Modelling under-reporting in epidemics.

Authors:  Kokouvi M Gamado; George Streftaris; Stan Zachary
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 2.259

3.  Under-reporting and case fatality estimates for emerging epidemics.

Authors:  Katherine E Atkins; Natasha S Wenzel; Martial Ndeffo-Mbah; Frederick L Altice; Jeffrey P Townsend; Alison P Galvani
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-03-16

4.  Identification of COVID-19 can be quicker through artificial intelligence framework using a mobile phone-based survey when cities and towns are under quarantine.

Authors:  Arni S R Srinivasa Rao; Jose A Vazquez
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 3.254

5.  Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study.

Authors:  Joseph T Wu; Kathy Leung; Gabriel M Leung
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  True epidemic growth construction through harmonic analysis.

Authors:  Steven G Krantz; Peter Polyakov; Arni S R Srinivasa Rao
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 2.691

  6 in total
  27 in total

1.  Estimating under-recognized COVID-19 deaths, United States, march 2020-may 2021 using an excess mortality modelling approach.

Authors:  A Danielle Iuliano; Howard H Chang; Neha N Patel; Ryan Threlkel; Krista Kniss; Jeremy Reich; Molly Steele; Aron J Hall; Alicia M Fry; Carrie Reed
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health Am       Date:  2021-07-13

2.  Frontline healthcare workers' experiences of providing care during the COVID-19 pandemic at a COVID-19 centre in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: A phenomenological study.

Authors:  Idah Moyo; Azwihangwisi H Mavhandu-Mudzusi; Clara Haruzivishe
Journal:  Curationis       Date:  2022-06-30

3.  Exploring the young demographic profile of COVID-19 cases in Hong Kong: Evidence from migration and travel history data.

Authors:  Christian Joy Pattawi Cruz; Rachel Ganly; Zilin Li; Stuart Gietel-Basten
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Short-term forecasting of daily COVID-19 cases in Brazil by using the Holt's model.

Authors:  Edson Zangiacomi Martinez; Davi Casale Aragon; Altacílio Aparecido Nunes
Journal:  Rev Soc Bras Med Trop       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 1.581

5.  Machine Learning to Detect Self-Reporting of Symptoms, Testing Access, and Recovery Associated With COVID-19 on Twitter: Retrospective Big Data Infoveillance Study.

Authors:  Tim Mackey; Vidya Purushothaman; Jiawei Li; Neal Shah; Matthew Nali; Cortni Bardier; Bryan Liang; Mingxiang Cai; Raphael Cuomo
Journal:  JMIR Public Health Surveill       Date:  2020-06-08

6.  Incorporating dynamic flight network in SEIR to model mobility between populations.

Authors:  Xiaoye Ding; Shenyang Huang; Abby Leung; Reihaneh Rabbany
Journal:  Appl Netw Sci       Date:  2021-06-10

7.  Detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia in Critically Ill Patients, but Not in Mild and Asymptomatic Infections.

Authors:  Enrico Richter; Doaa Al Arashi; Bianca Schulte; Christian Bode; Benjamin Marx; Souhaib Aldabbagh; Celina Schlüter; Beate Mareike Kümmerer; Johannes Oldenburg; Markus B Funk; Christian Putensen; Ricarda Maria Schmithausen; Gunther Hartmann; Anna Eis-Hübinger; Hendrik Streeck
Journal:  Transfus Med Hemother       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 3.747

8.  Assessing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain: Large-Scale, Online, Self-Reported Population Survey.

Authors:  Nuria Oliver; Xavier Barber; Kirsten Roomp; Kristof Roomp
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Excess mortality in the United States during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  R Rivera; J E Rosenbaum; W Quispe
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 2.451

10.  Association of Country-wide Coronavirus Mortality with Demographics, Testing, Lockdowns, and Public Wearing of Masks.

Authors:  Christopher T Leffler; Edsel Ing; Joseph D Lykins; Matthew C Hogan; Craig A McKeown; Andrzej Grzybowski
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2020-10-26       Impact factor: 3.707

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.