The impact of changes in diagnostic testing practices on estimates of COVID-19 transmission in the United States

Estimates of the reproductive number for novel pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 are essential for understanding the potential trajectory of the epidemic and the level of intervention that is needed to bring the epidemic under control. However, most methods for estimating the basic reproductive number (R0) and time-varying effective reproductive number (Rt) assume that the fraction of cases detected and reported is constant through time. We explore the impact of secular changes in diagnostic testing and reporting on estimates of R0 and Rt using simulated data. We then compare these patterns to data on reported cases of COVID-19 and testing practices from different United States (US) states. We find that changes in testing practices and delays in reporting can result in biased estimates of R0 and Rt. Examination of changes in the daily number of tests conducted and the percent of patients testing positive may be helpful for identifying the potential direction of bias. Changes in diagnostic testing and reporting processes should be monitored and taken into consideration when interpreting estimates of the reproductive number of COVID-19.

[1]  S. Bhatt,et al.  Report 13: Estimating the number of infections and the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in 11 European countries , 2020 .

[2]  Nicolas A. Menzies,et al.  Nowcasting by Bayesian Smoothing: A flexible, generalizable model for real-time epidemic tracking , 2019, bioRxiv.

[3]  P. Klepac,et al.  Early dynamics of transmission and control of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[4]  Michael Libman,et al.  Diagnostic Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome–Related Coronavirus-2 , 2020, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  A. Vespignani,et al.  Evolving epidemiology and transmission dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 outside Hubei province, China: a descriptive and modelling study , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[6]  J. Wallinga,et al.  Different Epidemic Curves for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Reveal Similar Impacts of Control Measures , 2004, American journal of epidemiology.

[7]  Chonggang Xu,et al.  High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 , 2020, Emerging infectious diseases.

[8]  A. J. Hall.  Infectious diseases of humans: R. M. Anderson & R. M. May. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press, 1991. viii + 757 pp. Price £50. ISBN 0-19-854599-1 , 1992 .

[9]  Carl A. B. Pearson,et al.  The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: a modelling study , 2020, The Lancet Public Health.

[10]  C. Fraser,et al.  Factors that make an infectious disease outbreak controllable. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  C. Whittaker,et al.  Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[12]  C. Fraser,et al.  A New Framework and Software to Estimate Time-Varying Reproduction Numbers During Epidemics , 2013, American journal of epidemiology.

[13]  Christl A. Donnelly,et al.  Real-time Estimates in Early Detection of SARS , 2006, Emerging infectious diseases.

[14]  J. Robins,et al.  Transmission Dynamics and Control of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , 2003, Science.

[15]  Ruiyun Li,et al.  Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) , 2020, Science.

[16]  L. Yang,et al.  Preliminary estimation of the basic reproduction number of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in China, from 2019 to 2020: A data-driven analysis in the early phase of the outbreak , 2020, International Journal of Infectious Diseases.