Quantifying hospital flows and occupancy due to COVID-19 outbreak in France. Was French lockdown effective?

1 Introduction

After an outbreak in December 2010 in Wuhan (Hubei, China), Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) reached the rest of the world in less than two months. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared on February 26 of 2020 that all continents were touched by COVID-19 and declared pandemic situation on March 11. On May 22^nd, more than 5 million of cases and 330000 of deaths were recorded: most of deaths were recorded in USA (96363), United Kindgom (36042), Italy (32486), France (28215), Spain (27940) and Brazil (20082) [1].

The report 9 of Ferguson et al. [2] suggested that COVID-19 may trigger not only dramatic number of deaths, but also huge hospital overload and saturation of intensive care units (ICU). Therefore, 87 countries have imposed national or subnational lockdowns [3]. In France, the first COVID-19 cases were confirmed at the end of January, and the first death from COVID-19 was recorded on February 28; a national lockdown, including overseas territories and departments, was begun on March 17^th and ended on May 11^th in France [4].

Previous works that used compartmental deterministic mathematical models suggested and/or confirmed substantial benefit of lockdown [5–9]. The validity of compartmental deterministic models by themselves is usually agreed. However, since they are most often used as infection and/or death count forecasts very early in epidemic histories, their (numerous) parameters have to be fixed based on prior knowledge, which might lead to over- or under-predictions.

Compartmental models have been used in several fields, including medical research and pharmacology, where compartmental models are usually estimated from data to quantify biologic and/or pharmacologic phenomena, while no (or a few) parameter values are fixed from assumptions. In this field, non-linear mixed-effects (NLME) modelling is used to estimate model parameters with methods based on likelihood maximization or Markov-chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) methods [11–12].

If most of previous works used sound epidemic and/or mechanistic models to describe COVID-19 outbreak, spread and hospital occupancy, none of them attempted to estimate models parameters to quantify actual patient flows in hospital services and ICU or the influence of lockdown on hospital occupancy. Therefore, the present study proposes to develop a compartmental model describing hospital flows between hospital services, ICU, deaths and return home, to estimate transfer flow rate constants, and to quantify the effect of lockdown in France using NLME modelling.

2 Methods

2.2 Hospital flow model

The hospital flow model is described using a system of 9 ordinary differential equations. (figure 1). This model was obtained after having tested numerous possibilities. First, patient hospitalization was described using a Kermack-McKendrick input function:

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Compartmental model describing patient flows between susceptible (S), non-ICU services (H), in ICU (R), deaths in hospital (D) and return to home (G). Abbreviations are found in the text below.

Where S is the number of subjects susceptible to be hospitalized, k_I is hospitalization rate constant, H₁ is the number of hospitalized subjects and N is total number of subjects. Hospitalized patients are assumed to be directed to heal, to die or towards ICU:

Where k_DH, k_H1 and k_H2 are direction rate constants towards hospital death, hospital heal and ICU, respectively. Because of a delay between hospital admission and death, decease in hospital is described using the following equation:

Where H₂ is the number of hospitalized patients in non-ICU services bound to die, kHD and kDH are input and output rates constants, respectively. Because early attempts showed that patients bound to live and to die present different kinetics, they were described using separate equations. Therefore, the kinetics of patients that heal from hospitalization is described as follows:

Where H₃ is the number of hospitalized patients (not in ICU) bound to heal. Early attempts showed a delay between admission in hospital and in ICU. In addition, as for hospital patients, patients bound to heal or die in ICU present different kinetics and were therefore described in separate equations. Thus, the following compartment described the transfer of patients toward ICU as follows:

Where H₄ is the number of patients in tansit compartment which describes a delay of patient direction towards ICU, and k_R and k_RD are direction rate constants toward heal or death paths in ICU, respectively. The kinetics of atients bound to heal for ICU is described as follows:

Where R₁ is the number of patients bound to heal in ICU and k_G2 is ICU heal rate constant. The kinetics of patients bound to die in ICU is described as follows:

Where R₂ is the number of patients bound to die in ICU and k_DR is ICU death rate constant. Dead (D) and healed (G) patients were described using the following equations:

Initial time (t=0) was fixed on the December 31^st of 2019, to set January 1^st of 2020 as day 1. The system was initialized by estimating the time of the first patient to be hospitalized, i.e. t_first such as H₁(t=t_first) = 1. All other equations were assumed to be equal to 0 at t = t_first. The number of hospitalized patients outside ICU (H), in ICU (R) were respectively assumed to be H = H₂ + H₃ and R = R₁ + R₂. The influence of French lockdown was assumed to decrease the hospitalization rate constant as follows:

Where α is a coefficient between 0 and 1 and t_effect is the time from which lockdown effect was detected.

3 Results

Data of patient hospitalization in non-ICU services (H, figure 2A), in ICU (R, figure 2B), deaths in hospital (D, figure 2C) and return to home (G, figure 2D) were satisfactorily described by the hospital flow model. Best error models were mixed additive-proportional for all measurements. All model parameters were estimated with good accuracy (table 1). No estimation collinearity was observed. The plots of predicted vs. observed measurements showed good model fitting (figure 3). Individual weighted residuals showed no obvious bias or model misspecification (figure 4). Accounting for lockdown model led to a real improve in data description, with a decrease in AIC of 1057.02 (AIC = 81072.13 and 80015.11 without and with lockdown effect, respectively).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2A.

Observed (clear blue dots) and model-fitted (deep blue line) hospitalizations in non-ICU services in different (sub)-regions

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2B.

Observed (clear blue dots) and model-fitted (deep blue line) hospitalizations in ICU in different (sub)-regions

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2C.

Observed (clear blue dots) and model-fitted (deep blue line) deaths in hospital in different (sub)-regions

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2D.

Observed (clear blue dots) and model-fitted (deep blue line) returns to home in different (sub)-regions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Model-fitted vs. observed values of hospitalizations in non-ICU services (H), in ICU (R), deaths in hospital (D) and returns at home (G) in log-scale.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Weighted “individual” residuals vs. Gaussian law.

If the inter-region variability of parameters related to disease itself was low (< 40% for t_first, N₀ and k_I), this variability was much higher for parameters related to hospital flows (between 40% and 95%), and surprisingly high for lockdown effect (130% for α). The lower the α, the higher the lockdown effect on k_I (table 2). For instance, lockdown was very effective in Ile-de-France (α=0.013), while less efficient in Grand-Est (α=0.52) or Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (α=0.38). On the global France data, a poor effect of lockdown was observed (α=0.89). Of note, no inter-region correlation was found between parameters related to disease and related to lockdown (α, t_effect).

The time for which the first patient was hospitalized in France corresponds to the initiation of the system effect such as H₁(t=t_first) = 1, at day 47, which corresponds to the February 17^th of 2020. French lockdown started one month later, on March 17^th of 2020 (day 76); the effect of lockdown was detectable 12 days after this date in whole France (day 88, table 2), variable among (sub)regions.

Simulations suggested that lockdown did not substantially decrease either hospital occupancy or deaths in hospital. They also suggested that lockdown effect would have been increased if started before its actual date. Indeed, hospital occupancy and deaths in hospital would have been both decreased by 30% and 85% in average if lockdown was started 20 and 30 days before this date, respectively. (figure 5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

Simulations of hospitalizations in non-ICU services (H), in ICU (R), deaths in hospital (D) and returns at home (G) for different lockdown strategies. The value of N₀ was converted as its value per 100,000 capita (N_0*=170). Lockdown effect was detectable at day 88, i.e. 12 days after start of lockdown.

4 Discussion

This work has focused on available data to estimate the actual effect of lockdown on hospitalization burden in regions and sub-regions of France. This model allowed an accurate description of patient flows between non-ICU services, ICU, deaths at hospital and return to home. Adding the effect of lockdown allowed an even better description of hospital data.

A previous work suggested that French lockdown would have prevented almost 600,000 hospital admissions, including almost 150,000 in ICU [9]. However, this work has been criticized, because of a possible over-estimation of hospital burden [12]. The principle of lockdown itself remains controversial. Introduced for the first time in human history in 2020 instead of isolation or quarantine, it may lead to a large social cost while being less efficient than isolation or quarantine measures [13]. To deal with this controversy, the present hospital flow model was attempted to either validate or invalidate the following hypothesis: “lockdown has decreased hospital burden in France”. This necessitated a sound description of patient input/flows/output in hospital.

This study showed a significant effect of lockdown on hospitalization rate (k_I), with a global decrease of k_I by thrice. However, the consequences of lockdown appeared to be minor: simulations made from the hospital flow model suggested that lockdown have had no significant influence on hospital burden and would have saved less than 1 life per 100,000 capita, compared to the 22 per 100,000 who have died until the day May 22^nd [14]. There may be at least three explanations: first, the effect of lockdown is delayed in time (detected 12 days after start of lockdown in average), second, hospital occupancy was already high at this date and, last, but not least, the risk of infection may have already started to decline [14]. Nevertheless, the effect of lockdown, as well as patient flow parameters, was found to be very variable among regions and sub-regions of France. This variability may be due, at least in part, to population density in each region, different hospital cares, different population characteristics (inter-region differences in mean age, co-morbidities, etc.), and/or to the respect of mitigation strategies.

If an intrinsic effect of lockdown measures seems indisputable, one could question the date of establishment. Indeed, simulations showed that both hospital occupancy and deaths would not have been significantly different if no lockdown was established, but they might have been dramatically decreased if lockdown had been started 20 or 30 days started before the official date of application. Nevertheless, at these days, the first death from COVID-19, and the first case were respectively recorded.

This work has nevertheless limitations. First, all French sub-regions were not considered, in order to keep N₀ sufficiently high in each region unit and to avoid very long time of computation. In particular, overseas territories were not considered, except for Corse. Second, even if accurate values of model parameters were obtained in each region, notably the time of the first hospitalized patient, no spatial description of disease spread was made. Third, this model does not pretend to be an epidemic model: the hospital admission growth was described using a Kermack-McKendrick input function, which may appear oversimplistic. This also concerns the “on/off” model for lockdown effect, which may not account for the complexity of the real effect of lockdown. Therefore, this model cannot test lockdown ending strategies and their consequences on the risk and amplitude of epidemic rebounds. To describe or forecast these rebounds, a mechanistic epidemic model as Roux et al. [9] could elegantly replace the present input function. Last but not least, this model is “macroscopic”, i.e. does not account for patient specificities (as age distribution or proportion of comorbidities). Taking into account these factors may improve the description of inter-region variability [14]. Given these limitations, the lockdown effect should be considered with caution, this study providing trends more than a sound quantification.

In conclusion, the present model has shown an intrinsic effect of lockdown to decrease hospital burden. However, the efficiency of lockdown may have been increased if established sooner. This may raise important questions, notably regarding social acceptability of these rigorous measures that would have imposed while no strong signal of danger was present.