RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A comparative analysis of statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number in emerging epidemics with implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.05.13.20101121
DO 10.1101/2020.05.13.20101121
A1 O’Driscoll, Megan
A1 Harry, Carole
A1 Donnelly, Christl A.
A1 Cori, Anne
A1 Dorigatti, Ilaria
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101121.abstract
AB As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues its rapid global spread, quantification of local transmission patterns has been, and will continue to be, critical for guiding pandemic response. Understanding the accuracy and limitations of statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number, R0, in the context of emerging epidemics is therefore vital to ensure appropriate interpretation of results and the subsequent implications for control efforts. Using simulated epidemic data we assess the performance of 6 commonly-used statistical methods to estimate R0 as they would be applied in a real-time outbreak analysis scenario – fitting to an increasing number of data points over time and with varying levels of random noise in the data. Method comparison was also conducted on empirical outbreak data, using Zika surveillance data from the 2015–2016 epidemic in Latin America and the Caribbean. We find that all methods considered here frequently over-estimate R0 in the early stages of epidemic growth on simulated data, the magnitude of which decreases when fitted to an increasing number of time points. This trend of decreasing bias over time can easily lead to incorrect conclusions about the course of the epidemic or the need for control efforts. We show that true changes in pathogen transmissibility can be difficult to disentangle from changes in methodological accuracy and precision, particularly for data with significant over-dispersion. As localised epidemics of SARS-CoV-2 take hold around the globe, awareness of this trend will be important for appropriately cautious interpretation of results and subsequent guidance for control efforts.Significance Statement In line with a real-time outbreak analysis we use simulated epidemic data to assess the performance of 6 commonly-used statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number, R0, at different time points during the epidemic growth phase. We find that estimates of R0 are frequently overestimated by these methods in the early stages of epidemic growth, with decreasing bias when fitting to an increasing number of time points. Reductions in R0 estimates obtained at sequential time points during early epidemic growth may reflect increased methodological accuracy rather than reductions in pathogen transmissibility or effectiveness of interventions. As SARS-CoV-2 continues its geographic spread, awareness of this bias will be important for appropriate interpretation of results and subsequent guidance for control efforts.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work is jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement and is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (MO, CAD, AC, ID); the Fondation Mathématiques Jacques Hadamard (CH); the Imperial College Undergraduate Research Opportunity Programme (CH); the Imperial College Junior Research Fellowship, Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society [grant 213494/Z/18/Z] (ID).Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data and code necessary to reproduce this analysis are available at https://github.com/meganodris/R0-methods-comparison