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.

Real-time estimates of the true size and trajectory of local COVID-19 epidemics are key metrics to guide policy responses. We developed a Bayesian nowcasting approach that explicitly accounts for reporting delays and secular changes in case ascertainment to generate real-time estimates of COVID-19 epidemiology on the basis of reported cases and deaths. Using this approach, we estimate time trends in infections, symptomatic cases, and deaths for all 50 US states and the District of Columbia from early-March through June 11, 2020. At the beginning of June, our best estimates of the effective reproduction number (Rt) are close to 1 in most states, indicating a stabilization of incidence, but there is considerable variability in the level of incidence and the estimated proportion of the population that has already been infected.

Estimates of the reproductive number for novel pathogens such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 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 coronavirus disease and testing practices from different states in the United States from March 4 to August 30, 2020. 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 coronavirus disease.

Background The incidence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) remains critically high in countries of the former Soviet Union, where >20% of new cases and >50% of previously treated cases have resistance to rifampin and isoniazid. Transmission of resistant strains, as opposed to resistance selected through inadequate treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis (TB), is the main driver of incident MDR-TB in these countries. Methods and findings We conducted a prospective, genomic analysis of all culture-positive TB cases diagnosed in 2018 and 2019 in the Republic of Moldova. We used phylogenetic methods to identify putative transmission clusters; spatial and demographic data were analyzed to further describe local transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Of 2,236 participants, 779 (36%) had MDR-TB, of whom 386 (50%) had never been treated previously for TB. Moreover, 92% of multidrug-resistant (MDR) M. tuberculosis strains belonged to putative transmission clusters. Phylogenetic reconstruction identified 3 large clades that were comprised nearly uniformly of MDR-TB: 2 of these clades were of Beijing lineage, and 1 of Ural lineage, and each had additional distinct clade-specific second-line drug resistance mutations and geographic distributions. Spatial and temporal proximity between pairs of cases within a cluster was associated with greater genomic similarity. Our study lasted for only 2 years, a relatively short duration compared with the natural history of TB, and, thus, the ability to infer the full extent of transmission is limited. Conclusions The MDR-TB epidemic in Moldova is associated with the local transmission of multiple M. tuberculosis strains, including distinct clades of highly drug-resistant M. tuberculosis with varying geographic distributions and drug resistance profiles. This study demonstrates the role of comprehensive genomic surveillance for understanding the transmission of M. tuberculosis and highlights the urgency of interventions to interrupt transmission of highly drug-resistant M. tuberculosis.

Reported COVID-19 cases and deaths provide a delayed and incomplete picture of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the United States (US). Accurate estimates of both the timing and magnitude of infections are needed to characterize viral transmission dynamics and better understand COVID-19 disease burden. We estimated time trends in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and other COVID-19 outcomes for every county in the US, from the first reported COVID-19 case in January 13, 2020 through January 1, 2021. To do so we employed a Bayesian modeling approach that explicitly accounts for reporting delays and variation in case ascertainment, and generates daily estimates of incident SARS-CoV-2 infections on the basis of reported COVID-19 cases and deaths. The model is freely available as the covidestim R package. Nationally, we estimated there had been 49 million symptomatic COVID-19 cases and 404,214 COVID-19 deaths by the end of 2020, and that 28% of the US population had been infected. There was county-level variability in the timing and magnitude of incidence, with local epidemiological trends differing substantially from state or regional averages, leading to large differences in the estimated proportion of the population infected by the end of 2020. Our estimates of true COVID-19 related deaths are consistent with independent estimates of excess mortality, and our estimated trends in cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection are consistent with trends in seroprevalence estimates from available antibody testing studies. Reconstructing the underlying incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections across US counties allows for a more granular understanding of disease trends and the potential impact of epidemiological drivers.