Evaluation of undetected cases during the COVID-19 epidemic in Austria.


Journal

BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Jan 2021
Historique:
received: 05 10 2020
accepted: 26 12 2020
entrez: 14 1 2021
pubmed: 15 1 2021
medline: 26 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Knowing the number of undetected cases of COVID-19 is important for a better understanding of the spread of the disease. This study analyses the temporal dynamic of detected vs. undetected cases to provide guidance for the interpretation of prevalence studies performed with PCR or antibody tests to estimate the detection rate. We used an agent-based model to evaluate assumptions on the detection probability ranging from 0.1 to 0.9. For each general detection probability, we derived age-dependent detection probabilities and calibrated the model to reproduce the epidemic wave of COVID-19 in Austria from March 2020 to June 2020. We categorized infected individuals into presymptomatic, symptomatic unconfirmed, confirmed and never detected to observe the simulated dynamic of the detected and undetected cases. The calculation of the age-dependent detection probability ruled values lower than 0.4 as most likely. Furthermore, the proportion of undetected cases depends strongly on the dynamic of the epidemic wave: during the initial upswing, the undetected cases account for a major part of all infected individuals, whereas their share decreases around the peak of the confirmed cases. The results of prevalence studies performed to determine the detection rate of COVID-19 patients should always be interpreted with regard to the current dynamic of the epidemic wave. Applying the method proposed in our analysis, the prevalence study performed in Austria in April 2020 could indicate a detection rate of 0.13, instead of the prevalent ratio of 0.29 between detected and estimated undetected cases at that time.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Knowing the number of undetected cases of COVID-19 is important for a better understanding of the spread of the disease. This study analyses the temporal dynamic of detected vs. undetected cases to provide guidance for the interpretation of prevalence studies performed with PCR or antibody tests to estimate the detection rate.
METHODS METHODS
We used an agent-based model to evaluate assumptions on the detection probability ranging from 0.1 to 0.9. For each general detection probability, we derived age-dependent detection probabilities and calibrated the model to reproduce the epidemic wave of COVID-19 in Austria from March 2020 to June 2020. We categorized infected individuals into presymptomatic, symptomatic unconfirmed, confirmed and never detected to observe the simulated dynamic of the detected and undetected cases.
RESULTS RESULTS
The calculation of the age-dependent detection probability ruled values lower than 0.4 as most likely. Furthermore, the proportion of undetected cases depends strongly on the dynamic of the epidemic wave: during the initial upswing, the undetected cases account for a major part of all infected individuals, whereas their share decreases around the peak of the confirmed cases.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The results of prevalence studies performed to determine the detection rate of COVID-19 patients should always be interpreted with regard to the current dynamic of the epidemic wave. Applying the method proposed in our analysis, the prevalence study performed in Austria in April 2020 could indicate a detection rate of 0.13, instead of the prevalent ratio of 0.29 between detected and estimated undetected cases at that time.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33441091
doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05737-6
pii: 10.1186/s12879-020-05737-6
pmc: PMC7805565
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

70

Subventions

Organisme : Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft
ID : 881665/35755806

Références

N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 11;382(24):2302-2315
pubmed: 32289214
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Apr;8(4):e488-e496
pubmed: 32119825
Science. 2020 May 1;368(6490):489-493
pubmed: 32179701
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):420-424
pubmed: 32674112
Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 5;172(9):577-582
pubmed: 32150748
Euro Surveill. 2020 Mar;25(10):
pubmed: 32183930
Value Health. 2012 Sep-Oct;15(6):796-803
pubmed: 22999128
Acta Paediatr. 2020 Jun;109(6):1088-1095
pubmed: 32202343

Auteurs

C Rippinger (C)

DWH Simulation Services, DEXHELPP, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria. claire.rippinger@dwh.at.
TU Wien, Institute of Information Systems Engineering, Favoritenstraße 11, 1040, Vienna, Austria. claire.rippinger@dwh.at.

M Bicher (M)

DWH Simulation Services, DEXHELPP, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria.
TU Wien, Institute of Information Systems Engineering, Favoritenstraße 11, 1040, Vienna, Austria.

C Urach (C)

DWH Simulation Services, DEXHELPP, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria.

D Brunmeir (D)

DWH Simulation Services, DEXHELPP, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria.

N Weibrecht (N)

DWH Simulation Services, DEXHELPP, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria.

G Zauner (G)

DWH Simulation Services, DEXHELPP, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria.

G Sroczynski (G)

Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria.

B Jahn (B)

Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria.
Division of Health Technology Assessment, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Karl-Kapferer-Straße 5, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.

N Mühlberger (N)

Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria.

U Siebert (U)

Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria.
Division of Health Technology Assessment, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Karl-Kapferer-Straße 5, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 101 Merrimac St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Center for Health Decision Science, Departments of Epidemiology and Health Policy & Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

N Popper (N)

DWH Simulation Services, DEXHELPP, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria.
TU Wien, Institute of Information Systems Engineering, Favoritenstraße 11, 1040, Vienna, Austria.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH