Dataset Information

Differential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on laboratory reporting of norovirus and Campylobacter in England: A modelling approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted surveillance activities for multiple pathogens. Since March 2020, there was a decline in the number of reports of norovirus and Campylobacter recorded by England's national laboratory surveillance system. The aim is to estimate and compare the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on norovirus and Campylobacter surveillance data in England.

Methods

We utilised two quasi-experimental approaches based on a generalised linear model for sequential count data. The first approach estimates overall impact and the second approach focuses on the impact of specific elements of the pandemic response (COVID-19 diagnostic testing and control measures). The following time series (27, 2015-43, 2020) were used: weekly laboratory-confirmed norovirus and Campylobacter reports, air temperature, conducted Sars-CoV-2 tests and Index of COVID-19 control measures stringency.

Results

The period of Sars-CoV-2 emergence and subsequent sustained transmission was associated with persistent reductions in norovirus laboratory reports (p = 0.001), whereas the reductions were more pronounced during pandemic emergence and later recovered for Campylobacter (p = 0.075). The total estimated reduction was 47% - 79% for norovirus (12-43, 2020). The total reduction varied by time for Campylobacter, e.g. 19% - 33% in April, 1% - 7% in August.

Conclusion

Laboratory reporting of norovirus was more adversely impacted than Campylobacter by the COVID-19 pandemic. This may be partially explained by a comparatively stronger effect of behavioural interventions on norovirus transmission and a relatively greater reduction in norovirus testing capacity. Our study underlines the differential impact a pandemic may have on surveillance of gastrointestinal infectious diseases.

SUBMITTER: Ondrikova N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8386829 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Excess mortality is an important measure of the scale of the coronavirus-2019 pandemic. It includes both deaths caused directly by the pandemic, and deaths caused by the unintended consequences of containment such as delays to accessing care or postponements of healthcare provision in the population. In 2020 and 2021, in England, multiple groups have produced measures of excess mortality during the pandemic. This paper describes the data and methods used in five different approaches to estimating excess mortality and compares their estimates.The fundamental principles of estimating excess mortality are described, as well as the key commonalities and differences between five approaches. Two of these are based on the date of registration: a quasi-Poisson model with offset and a 5-year average; and three are based on date of occurrence: a Poisson model without offset, the European monitoring of excess mortality model and a synthetic controls model. Comparisons between estimates of excess mortality are made for the period March 2020 through March 2021 and for the two waves of the pandemic that occur within that time-period.Model estimates are strikingly similar during the first wave of the pandemic though larger differences are observed during the second wave. Models that adjusted for reduced circulation of winter infection produced higher estimates of excess compared with those that did not. Models that do not adjust for reduced circulation of winter infection captured the effect of reduced winter illness as a result of mobility restrictions during the period. None of the estimates captured mortality displacement and therefore may underestimate excess at the current time, though the extent to which this has occurred is not yet identified. Models use different approaches to address variation in data availability and stakeholder requirements of the measure. Variation between estimates reflects differences in the date of interest, population denominators and parameters in the model relating to seasonality and trend.

Project description:BackgroundAchieving health benefits while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport offers a potential policy win-win; the magnitude of potential benefits, however, is likely to vary. This study uses an Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling tool (ITHIM) to evaluate the health and environmental impacts of high walking and cycling transport scenarios for English and Welsh urban areas outside London.MethodsThree scenarios with increased walking and cycling and lower car use were generated based upon the Visions 2030 Walking and Cycling project. Changes to carbon dioxide emissions were estimated by environmental modelling. Health impact assessment modelling was used to estimate changes in Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) resulting from changes in exposure to air pollution, road traffic injury risk, and physical activity. We compare the findings of the model with results generated using the World Health Organization's Health Economic Assessment of Transport (HEAT) tools.ResultsThis study found considerable reductions in disease burden under all three scenarios, with the largest health benefits attributed to reductions in ischemic heart disease. The pathways that produced the largest benefits were, in order, physical activity, road traffic injuries, and air pollution. The choice of dose response relationship for physical activity had a large impact on the size of the benefits. Modelling the impact on all-cause mortality rather than through individual diseases suggested larger benefits. Using the best available evidence we found fewer road traffic injuries for all scenarios compared with baseline but alternative assumptions suggested potential increases.ConclusionsMethods to estimate the health impacts from transport related physical activity and injury risk are in their infancy; this study has demonstrated an integration of transport and health impact modelling approaches. The findings add to the case for a move from car transport to walking and cycling, and have implications for empirical and modelling research.

Project description:IntroductionDelays in cancer diagnosis arose from the commencement of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) introduced in the UK in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our earlier work predicted this will lead to approximately 3620 avoidable deaths for four major tumour types (breast, bowel, lung, and oesophageal cancer) in the next 5 years. Here, using national population-based modelling, we estimate the health and economic losses resulting from these avoidable cancer deaths. We also compare these with the impact of an equivalent number of COVID-19 deaths to understand the welfare consequences of the different health conditions.MethodsWe estimate health losses using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lost economic productivity using the human capital (HC) approach. The analysis uses linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between 1st Jan to 31st Dec 2010, with follow-up data until 31st Dec 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between 1st Jan to 31st Dec 31 2012, with follow-up data until 31st Dec 2015. Productivity losses are based on the estimation of excess additional deaths due to cancer at 1, 3 and 5 years for the four cancer types, which were derived from a previous analysis using this dataset. A total of 500 random samples drawn from the total number of COVID-19 deaths reported by the Office for National Statistics, stratified by gender, were used to estimate productivity losses for an equivalent number of deaths (n = 3620) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsWe collected data for 32,583 patients with breast cancer, 24,975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29,305 with lung cancer. We estimate that across the four site-specific cancers combined in England alone, additional excess cancer deaths would amount to a loss of 32,700 QALYs (95% CI 31,300-34,100) and productivity losses of £103.8million GBP (73.2-132.2) in the next five years. For breast cancer, we estimate a loss of 4100 QALYS (3900-4400) and productivity losses of £23.2 m (18.2-28.6); for colorectal cancer, 15,000 QALYS (14,100-16,000) lost and productivity losses of £35.7 m (22.4-48.7); for lung cancer 10,900 QALYS (9,900-11,700) lost and productivity losses of £38.3 m (14.0-59.9) for lung cancer; and for oesophageal cancer, 2700 QALYS (2300-3,100) lost and productivity losses of £6.6 m (-6 to -17.6). In comparison, the equivalent number of COVID-19 deaths caused approximately 21,450 QALYs lost, as well as productivity losses amounting to £76.4 m (73.5-79.2).ConclusionPremature cancer deaths resulting from diagnostic delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK will result in significant economic losses. On a per-capita basis, this impact is, in fact, greater than that of deaths directly attributable to COVID-19. These results emphasise the importance of robust evaluation of the trade-offs of the wider health, welfare and economic effects of NPI to support both resource allocation and the prioritisation of time-critical health services directly impacted in a pandemic, such as cancer care.