Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Epidemic Models for Personalised COVID-19 Isolation and Exit Policies Using Clinical Risk Predictions

View ORCID ProfileTheodoros Evgeniou, Mathilde Fekom, Anton Ovchinnikov, Raphael Porcher, Camille Pouchol, Nicolas Vayatis
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.29.20084707
Theodoros Evgeniou
aINSEAD, Bd de Constance, 77300 Fontainebleau, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Theodoros Evgeniou
  • For correspondence: theodoros.evgeniou@insead.edu
Mathilde Fekom
bUniversité Paris-Saclay, ENS Paris-Saclay, CNRS, Centre Borelli, 94235 Cachan, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anton Ovchinnikov
cSmith School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L3N6, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Raphael Porcher
dUniversité de Paris CRESS, INSERM, INRA, 75004 Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Camille Pouchol
eMAP5 Laboratory, FP2M, CNRS FR 2036, Université de Paris, 75006 Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicolas Vayatis
fUniversité Paris-Saclay, ENS Paris-Saclay, CNRS, Centre Borelli, 94235 Cachan, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background In mid April 2020, with more than 2 · 5 billion people in the world following social distancing measures due to COVID-19, governments are considering relaxing lock-down. We combined individual clinical risk predictions with epidemic modelling to examine simulations of isolation and exit policies.

Methods We developed a method to include personalised risk predictions in epidemic models based on data science principles. We extended a standard susceptible-exposed-infected-removed (SEIR) model to account for predictions of severity, defined by the risk of an individual needing intensive care in case of infection. We studied example isolation policies using simulations with the risk-extended epidemic model, using COVID-19 data and estimates in France as of mid April 2020 (4 000 patients in ICU, around 7 250 total ICU beds occupied at the peak of the outbreak, 0·5% percent of patients requiring ICU upon infection). We considered scenarios varying in the discrimination performance of a risk prediction model, in the degree of social distancing, and in the severity rate upon infection. Confidence intervals were obtained using an Approximate Bayesian Computation approach. The framework may be used with other epidemic models, with other risk predictions, and for other epidemic outbreaks.

Findings Based on the data for France as of mid April 2020, simulations indicated that an exit policy considering clinical risk predictions starting on May 11, as planned by the government, could enable to immediately relax restrictions for an extra 10% (6 700 000 people) or more of the lowest-risk population, and consequently relax the restrictions on the remaining population up to two times (or several months) faster, with only a small proportion of the population remaining in isolation for an extended period of time – while abiding to the current ICU capacity. In contrast, implementing the same exit policy without risk predictions would exceed the ICU capacity by a multiple. Sensitivity analyses showed that when the assumed percentage of severe patients among the population decreased, or the prediction model discrimination improved, or ICU capacity increased, policies based on risk models had a greater impact on the results of epidemic simulations. At the same time, sensitivity analyses also showed that differential isolation policies require that higher risk individuals comply with recommended restrictions. In general, our simulations showed that risk prediction models could always improve policy effectiveness, keeping everything else constant, in line with value of information arguments, even for models with moderate discrimination power.

Interpretation Clinical risk prediction models should be considered to manage outbreaks using a framework as the one developed. They can inform personalised isolation policies, for example by gradually restricting (relaxing) isolation from the highest (lowest) to the lowest (highest) predicted risk individuals, when such policies are considered. This may lead to both safer and faster outcomes than what can be achieved without such prediction models. They enable personalisation of policies, which are known to improve effectiveness in other non-healthcare contexts.

Funding No funding was used for this research.

Evidence before this study Several countries have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions based on social distancing and isolation measures in order to limit the spread of COVID-19. There has been limited differentiation in the degree of isolation measures, except for those critical for the functioning of the healthcare system and other key services. There is limited evidence about the impact of relaxing these measures as this has happened only recently and in only a few countries. Investigating the potential impact of differential restrictions depending on medical factors, such as the risk of severe symptoms if infected by Sars-Cov-2, may inform policies for imposing or relaxing isolation policies when these are considered.

Added value of this study This study investigates incorporating clinical risk predictions in epidemic models, allowing to explore isolation policies that consider individual clinical risks using simulations.

Implications of all the available evidence Epidemic simulations of isolation policies that consider predicted clinical risks in order to differentiate restrictions depending on risks indicate the feasibility of new, possibly gradual, policies that may be riskier to implement without undertaking this type of risk-based approach.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

No funding was used for this research.

Author Declarations

All 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.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I 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).

Yes

I 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.

Yes

Data Availability

No data. Code is available at https://reine.cmla.ens-cachan.fr/boulant/seair

https://reine.cmla.ens-cachan.fr/boulant/seair

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted May 05, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Epidemic Models for Personalised COVID-19 Isolation and Exit Policies Using Clinical Risk Predictions
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Epidemic Models for Personalised COVID-19 Isolation and Exit Policies Using Clinical Risk Predictions
Theodoros Evgeniou, Mathilde Fekom, Anton Ovchinnikov, Raphael Porcher, Camille Pouchol, Nicolas Vayatis
medRxiv 2020.04.29.20084707; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.29.20084707
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Epidemic Models for Personalised COVID-19 Isolation and Exit Policies Using Clinical Risk Predictions
Theodoros Evgeniou, Mathilde Fekom, Anton Ovchinnikov, Raphael Porcher, Camille Pouchol, Nicolas Vayatis
medRxiv 2020.04.29.20084707; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.29.20084707

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (216)
  • Allergy and Immunology (495)
  • Anesthesia (106)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1099)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (196)
  • Dermatology (141)
  • Emergency Medicine (274)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (502)
  • Epidemiology (9781)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (481)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2317)
  • Geriatric Medicine (223)
  • Health Economics (462)
  • Health Informatics (1563)
  • Health Policy (737)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (606)
  • Hematology (238)
  • HIV/AIDS (506)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11656)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (617)
  • Medical Education (239)
  • Medical Ethics (67)
  • Nephrology (258)
  • Neurology (2147)
  • Nursing (134)
  • Nutrition (338)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (427)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (518)
  • Oncology (1183)
  • Ophthalmology (365)
  • Orthopedics (128)
  • Otolaryngology (220)
  • Pain Medicine (147)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (313)
  • Pediatrics (698)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (302)
  • Primary Care Research (267)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2187)
  • Public and Global Health (4672)
  • Radiology and Imaging (781)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (457)
  • Respiratory Medicine (624)
  • Rheumatology (274)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (226)
  • Sports Medicine (210)
  • Surgery (252)
  • Toxicology (43)
  • Transplantation (120)
  • Urology (94)