How many are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease? Rapid global, regional and national estimates for 2020

BackgroundThe risk of severe COVID-19 disease is known to be higher in older individuals and those with underlying health conditions. Understanding the number of individuals at increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness, and how this varies between countries may inform the design of possible strategies to shield those at highest risk.MethodsWe estimated the number of individuals at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease by age (5-year age groups), sex and country (n=188) based on prevalence data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study for 2017 and United Nations population estimates for 2020. We also calculated the number of individuals without an underlying condition that could be considered at-risk because of their age, using thresholds from 50-70 years. The list of underlying conditions relevant to COVID-19 disease was determined by mapping conditions listed in GBD to the guidelines published by WHO and public health agencies in the UK and US. We analysed data from two large multimorbidity studies to determine appropriate adjustment factors for clustering and multimorbidity.ResultsWe estimate that 1.7 (1.0 - 2.4) billion individuals (22% [15-28%] of the global population) are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease. The share of the population at increased risk ranges from 16% in Africa to 31% in Europe. Chronic kidney disease (CKD), cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes and chronic respiratory disease (CRD) were the most prevalent conditions in males and females aged 50+ years. African countries with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS and Island countries with a high prevalence of diabetes, also had a high share of the population at increased risk. The prevalence of multimorbidity (&gt;1 underlying conditions) was three times higher in Europe than in Africa (10% vs 3%).ConclusionBased on current guidelines and prevalence data from GBD, we estimate that one in five individuals worldwide has a condition that is on the list of those at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease. However, for many of these individuals the underlying condition will be undiagnosed or not severe enough to be captured in health systems, and in some cases the increase in risk may be quite modest. There is an urgent need for robust analyses of the risks associated with different underlying conditions so that countries can identify the highest risk groups and develop targeted shielding policies to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.Research in contextEvidence before this studyAs the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, countries are considering policies of ‘shielding’ the most vulnerable, but there is currently very limited evidence on the number of individuals that might need to be shielded. Guidelines on who is currently believed to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness have been published online by the WHO and public health agencies in the UK and US. We searched PubMed (“Risk factors” AND “COVID-19”) without language restrictions, from database inception until April 5, 2020, and identified 62 studies published between Feb 15, 2020 and March 20, 2020. Evidence from China, Italy and the USA indicates that older individuals, males and those with underlying conditions, such as CVD, diabetes and CRD, are at greater risk of severe COVID-19 illness and death.Added value of this studyThis study combines evidence from large international databases and new analysis of large multimorbidity studies to inform policymakers about the number of individuals that may be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness in different countries. We developed a tool for rapid assessments of the number and percentage of country populations that would need to be targeted under different shielding policies.Implications of all the available evidenceQuantifying how many and who is at increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness is critical to help countries design more effective interventions to protect vulnerable individuals and reduce pressure on health systems. This information can also inform a broader assessment of the health, social and economic implications of shielding various groups.</jats:sec

Global, regional, and national estimates of the population at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions in 2020: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of severe COVID-19 if an individual becomes infected is known to be higher in older individuals and those with underlying health conditions. Understanding the number of individuals at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and how this varies between countries should inform the design of possible strategies to shield or vaccinate those at highest risk. METHODS: We estimated the number of individuals at increased risk of severe disease (defined as those with at least one condition listed as "at increased risk of severe COVID-19" in current guidelines) by age (5-year age groups), sex, and country for 188 countries using prevalence data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 and UN population estimates for 2020. The list of underlying conditions relevant to COVID-19 was determined by mapping the conditions listed in GBD 2017 to those listed in guidelines published by WHO and public health agencies in the UK and the USA. We analysed data from two large multimorbidity studies to determine appropriate adjustment factors for clustering and multimorbidity. To help interpretation of the degree of risk among those at increased risk, we also estimated the number of individuals at high risk (defined as those that would require hospital admission if infected) using age-specific infection-hospitalisation ratios for COVID-19 estimated for mainland China and making adjustments to reflect country-specific differences in the prevalence of underlying conditions and frailty. We assumed males were twice at likely as females to be at high risk. We also calculated the number of individuals without an underlying condition that could be considered at increased risk because of their age, using minimum ages from 50 to 70 years. We generated uncertainty intervals (UIs) for our estimates by running low and high scenarios using the lower and upper 95% confidence limits for country population size, disease prevalences, multimorbidity fractions, and infection-hospitalisation ratios, and plausible low and high estimates for the degree of clustering, informed by multimorbidity studies. FINDINGS: We estimated that 1·7 billion (UI 1·0-2·4) people, comprising 22% (UI 15-28) of the global population, have at least one underlying condition that puts them at increased risk of severe COVID-19 if infected (ranging from 66% of those aged 70 years or older). We estimated that 349 million (186-787) people (4% [3-9] of the global population) are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and would require hospital admission if infected (ranging from <1% of those younger than 20 years to approximately 20% of those aged 70 years or older). We estimated 6% (3-12) of males to be at high risk compared with 3% (2-7) of females. The share of the population at increased risk was highest in countries with older populations, African countries with high HIV/AIDS prevalence, and small island nations with high diabetes prevalence. Estimates of the number of individuals at increased risk were most sensitive to the prevalence of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory disease. INTERPRETATION: About one in five individuals worldwide could be at increased risk of severe COVID-19, should they become infected, due to underlying health conditions, but this risk varies considerably by age. Our estimates are uncertain, and focus on underlying conditions rather than other risk factors such as ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and obesity, but provide a starting point for considering the number of individuals that might need to be shielded or vaccinated as the global pandemic unfolds. FUNDING: UK Department for International Development, Wellcome Trust, Health Data Research UK, Medical Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research

Estimating the time-varying reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 using national and subnational case counts

Background: Assessing temporal variations in transmission in different countries is essential for monitoring the epidemic, evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions and estimating the impact of changes in policy. Methods: We use case and death notification data to generate daily estimates of the time-varying reproduction number globally, regionally, nationally, and subnationally over a 12-week rolling window. Our modelling framework, based on open source tooling, accounts for uncertainty in reporting delays, so that the reproduction number is estimated based on underlying latent infections. Results: Estimates of the reproduction number, trajectories of infections, and forecasts are displayed on a dedicated website as both maps and time series, and made available to download in tabular form. Conclusions:  This decision-support tool can be used to assess changes in virus transmission both globally, regionally, nationally, and subnationally. This allows public health officials and policymakers to track the progress of the outbreak in near real-time using an epidemiologically valid measure. As well as providing regular updates on our website, we also provide an open source tool-set so that our approach can be used directly by researchers and policymakers on confidential data-sets. We hope that our tool will be used to support decisions in countries worldwide throughout the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.</ns4:p

Global, regional, and national estimates of the population at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions in 2020: a modelling study

Background: The risk of severe COVID-19 if an individual becomes infected is known to be higher in older individuals and those with underlying health conditions. Understanding the number of individuals at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and how this varies between countries should inform the design of possible strategies to shield or vaccinate those at highest risk. Methods: We estimated the number of individuals at increased risk of severe disease (defined as those with at least one condition listed as “at increased risk of severe COVID-19” in current guidelines) by age (5-year age groups), sex, and country for 188 countries using prevalence data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 and UN population estimates for 2020. The list of underlying conditions relevant to COVID-19 was determined by mapping the conditions listed in GBD 2017 to those listed in guidelines published by WHO and public health agencies in the UK and the USA. We analysed data from two large multimorbidity studies to determine appropriate adjustment factors for clustering and multimorbidity. To help interpretation of the degree of risk among those at increased risk, we also estimated the number of individuals at high risk (defined as those that would require hospital admission if infected) using age-specific infection–hospitalisation ratios for COVID-19 estimated for mainland China and making adjustments to reflect country-specific differences in the prevalence of underlying conditions and frailty. We assumed males were twice at likely as females to be at high risk. We also calculated the number of individuals without an underlying condition that could be considered at increased risk because of their age, using minimum ages from 50 to 70 years. We generated uncertainty intervals (UIs) for our estimates by running low and high scenarios using the lower and upper 95% confidence limits for country population size, disease prevalences, multimorbidity fractions, and infection–hospitalisation ratios, and plausible low and high estimates for the degree of clustering, informed by multimorbidity studies. Findings: We estimated that 1·7 billion (UI 1·0–2·4) people, comprising 22% (UI 15–28) of the global population, have at least one underlying condition that puts them at increased risk of severe COVID-19 if infected (ranging from &lt;5% of those younger than 20 years to &gt;66% of those aged 70 years or older). We estimated that 349 million (186–787) people (4% [3–9] of the global population) are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and would require hospital admission if infected (ranging from &lt;1% of those younger than 20 years to approximately 20% of those aged 70 years or older). We estimated 6% (3–12) of males to be at high risk compared with 3% (2–7) of females. The share of the population at increased risk was highest in countries with older populations, African countries with high HIV/AIDS prevalence, and small island nations with high diabetes prevalence. Estimates of the number of individuals at increased risk were most sensitive to the prevalence of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory disease. Interpretation: About one in five individuals worldwide could be at increased risk of severe COVID-19, should they become infected, due to underlying health conditions, but this risk varies considerably by age. Our estimates are uncertain, and focus on underlying conditions rather than other risk factors such as ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and obesity, but provide a starting point for considering the number of individuals that might need to be shielded or vaccinated as the global pandemic unfolds. Funding: UK Department for International Development, Wellcome Trust, Health Data Research UK, Medical Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research

Severity of SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant (B.1.1.7) in England.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant (B.1.1.7) is associated with higher transmissibility than wild type virus, becoming the dominant variant in England by January 2021. We aimed to describe the severity of the alpha variant in terms of the pathway of disease from testing positive to hospital admission and death. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we linked individual-level data from primary care with SARS-CoV-2 community testing, hospital admission, and ONS all-cause death data. We used testing data with S-gene target failure as a proxy for distinguishing alpha and wild-type cases, and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the relative severity of alpha cases compared to wild type diagnosed from 16th November 2020 to 11th January 2021. RESULTS: Using data from 185,234 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the community (alpha=93,153; wild-type=92,081), in fully adjusted analysis accounting for individual-level demographics and comorbidities as well as regional variation in infection incidence, we found alpha associated with 73% higher hazards of all-cause death (aHR: 1.73 (95% CI 1.41 - 2.13; P<.0001)) and 62% higher hazards of hospital admission (aHR: 1.62 ((95% CI 1.48 - 1.78; P<.0001), compared to wild-type virus. Among patients already admitted to ICU, the association between alpha and increased all-cause mortality was smaller and the confidence interval included the null (aHR: 1.20 (95% CI 0.74 - 1.95; P=0.45)). CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant is associated with an increased risk of both hospitalisation and mortality than wild-type virus

Comparative assessment of methods for short-term forecasts of COVID-19 hospital admissions in England at the local level

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

Simulating respiratory disease transmission within and between classrooms to assess pandemic management strategies at schools

The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emphasized the need for evidence-based strategies for the safe operation of schools during pandemics that balance infection risk with the society\u27s responsibility of allowing children to attend school. Due to limited empirical data, existing analyses assessing school-based interventions in pandemic situations often impose strong assumptions, for example, on the relationship between class size and transmission risk, which could bias the estimated effect of interventions, such as split classes and staggered attendance. To fill this gap in school outbreak studies, we parameterized an individual-based model that accounts for heterogeneous contact rates within and between classes and grades to a multischool outbreak data of influenza. We then simulated school outbreaks of respiratory infectious diseases of ongoing threat (i.e., COVID-19) and potential threat (i.e., pandemic influenza) under a variety of interventions (changing class structures, symptom screening, regular testing, cohorting, and responsive class closures). Our results suggest that interventions changing class structures (e.g., reduced class sizes) may not be effective in reducing the risk of major school outbreaks upon introduction of a case and that other precautionary measures (e.g., screening and isolation) need to be employed. Class-level closures in response to detection of a case were also suggested to be effective in reducing the size of an outbreak

The impact of COVID-19 vaccination in prisons in England and Wales : a metapopulation model

Background: High incidence of cases and deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported in prisons worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different COVID-19 vaccination strategies in epidemiologically semi-enclosed settings such as prisons, where staff interact regularly with those incarcerated and the wider community. Methods: We used a metapopulation transmission-dynamic model of a local prison in England and Wales. Two-dose vaccination strategies included no vaccination, vaccination of all individuals who are incarcerated and/or staff, and an age-based approach. Outcomes were quantified in terms of COVID-19-related symptomatic cases, losses in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and deaths. Results: Compared to no vaccination, vaccinating all people living and working in prison reduced cases, QALY loss and deaths over a one-year period by 41%, 32% and 36% respectively. However, if vaccine introduction was delayed until the start of an outbreak, the impact was negligible. Vaccinating individuals who are incarcerated and staff over 50 years old averted one death for every 104 vaccination courses administered. All-staff-only strategies reduced cases by up to 5%. Increasing coverage from 30 to 90% among those who are incarcerated reduced cases by around 30 percentage points. Conclusions: The impact of vaccination in prison settings was highly dependent on early and rapid vaccine delivery. If administered to both those living and working in prison prior to an outbreak occurring, vaccines could substantially reduce COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in prison settings

The contribution of hospital-acquired infections to the COVID-19 epidemic in England in the first half of 2020

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

Changes in social contacts in England during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and March 2021 as measured by the CoMix survey : a repeated cross-sectional study

Background During: the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (CAU OVID-19): pandemic, the United Kingdom government imposed public health policies in England to reduce social contacts in hopes of curbing virus transmission. We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study to measure contact patterns weekly from March 2020 to March 2021 to estimate the impact of these policies, covering 3 national lockdowns interspersed by periods of less restrictive policies. Methods and findings The repeated cross-sectional survey data were collected using online surveys of representative samples of the UK population by age and gender. Survey participants were recruited by the online market research company Ipsos MORI through internet-based banner and social media ads and email campaigns. The participant data used for this analysis are restricted to those who reported living in England. We calculated the mean daily contacts reported using a (clustered) bootstrap and fitted a censored negative binomial model to estimate age-stratified contact matrices and estimate proportional changes to the basic reproduction number under controlled conditions using the change in contacts as a scaling factor. To put the findings in perspective, we discuss contact rates recorded throughout the year in terms of previously recorded rates from the POLYMOD study social contact study. The survey recorded 101,350 observations from 19,914 participants who reported 466,710 contacts over 53 weeks. We observed changes in social contact patterns in England over time and by participants’ age, personal risk factors, and perception of risk. The mean reported contacts for adults 18 to 59 years old ranged between 2.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20 to 2.60) contacts and 4.93 (95% CI 4.65 to 5.19) contacts during the study period. The mean contacts for school-age children (5 to 17 years old) ranged from 3.07 (95% CI 2.89 to 3.27) to 15.11 (95% CI 13.87 to 16.41). This demonstrates a sustained decrease in social contacts compared to a mean of 11.08 (95% CI 10.54 to 11.57) contacts per participant in all age groups combined as measured by the POLYMOD social contact study in 2005 to 2006. Contacts measured during periods of lockdowns were lower than in periods of eased social restrictions. The use of face coverings outside the home has remained high since the government mandated use in some settings in July 2020. The main limitations of this analysis are the potential for selection bias, as participants are recruited through internet-based campaigns, and recall bias, in which participants may under- or over-report the number of contacts they have made