Polygenic risk scores (PRS) can provide useful information for personalized risk stratification and disease risk assessment, especially when combined with non-genetic risk factors. However, their construction depends on the availability of summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) independent from the target sample. For best compatibility, it was reported that GWAS and the target sample should match in terms of ancestries. Yet, GWAS, especially in the field of cancer, often lack diversity and are predominated by European ancestry. This bias is a limiting factor in PRS research. By using electronic health records and genetic data from the UK Biobank, we contrast the utility of breast and prostate cancer PRS derived from external European-ancestry-based GWAS across African, East Asian, European, and South Asian ancestry groups. We highlight differences in the PRS distributions of these groups that are amplified when PRS methods condense hundreds of thousands of variants into a single score. While European-GWAS-derived PRS were not directly transferrable across ancestries on an absolute scale, we establish their predictive potential when considering them separately within each group. For example, the top 10% of the breast cancer PRS distributions within each ancestry group each revealed significant enrichments of breast cancer cases compared to the bottom 90% (odds ratio of 2.81 [95%CI: 2.69,2.93] in European, 2.88 [1.85, 4.48] in African, 2.60 [1.25, 5.40] in East Asian, and 2.33 [1.55, 3.51] in South Asian individuals). Our findings highlight a compromise solution for PRS research to compensate for the lack of diversity in well-powered European GWAS efforts while recruitment of diverse participants in the field catches up.

Importance: India has taken strong and early public health measures for arresting the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic. With only 536 COVID-19 cases and 11 fatalities, India – a democracy of 1.34 billion people – took the historic decision of a 21-day national lockdown on March 25. The lockdown was further extended to May 3rd, soon after the analysis of this paper was completed. Objective: To study the short- and long-term impact of an initial 21-day lockdown on the total number of COVID-19 cases in India compared to other less severe non-pharmaceutical interventions using epidemiological forecasting models and Bayesian estimation algorithms; to compare effects of hypothetical durations of lockdown from an epidemiological perspective; to study alternative explanations for slower growth rate of the virus outbreak in India, including exploring the association of the number of cases and average monthly temperature; and finally, to outline the pivotal role of reliable and transparent data, reproducible data science methods, tools and products as we reopen the country and prepare for a post lock-down phase of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: We use the daily data on the number of COVID-19 cases, of recovered and of deaths from March 1 until April 7, 2020 from the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Visual Dashboard operated by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (JHU CSSE). Additionally, we use COVID-19 incidence counts data from Kaggle and the monthly average temperature of major cities across the world from Wikipedia. Main Outcome and Measures: The current time-series data on daily proportions of cases and removed (recovered and death combined) from India are analyzed using an extended version of the standard SIR (susceptible, infected, and removed) model. The eSIR model incorporates time-varying transmission rates that help us predict the effect of lockdown compared to other hypothetical interventions on the number of cases at future time points. A Markov Chain Monte Carlo implementation of this model provided predicted proportions of the cases at future time points along with credible intervals (CI). Results: Our predicted cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in India on April 30 assuming a 1-week delay in people’s adherence to a 21-day lockdown (March 25 – April 14) and a gradual, moderate resumption of daily activities after April 14 is 9,181 with upper 95% CI of 72,245. In comparison, the predicted cumulative number of cases under “no intervention” and “social distancing and travel bans without lockdown” are 358 thousand and 46 thousand (upper 95% CI of nearly 2.3 million and 0.3 million) respectively. An effective lockdown can prevent roughly 343 thousand (upper 95% CI 1.8 million) and 2.4 million (upper 95% CI 38.4 million) COVID-19 cases nationwide compared to social distancing alone by May 15 and June 15, respectively. When comparing a 21-day lockdown with a hypothetical lockdown of longer duration, we find that 28-, 42-, and 56-day lockdowns can approximately prevent 238 thousand (upper 95% CI 2.3 million), 622 thousand (upper 95% CI 4.3 million), 781 thousand (upper 95% CI 4.6 million) cases by June 15, respectively. We find some suggestive evidence that the COVID-19 incidence rates worldwide are negatively associated with temperature in a crude unadjusted analysis with Pearson correlation estimates [95% confidence interval] between average monthly temperature and total monthly incidence around the world being −0.185 [−0.548, 0.236] for January, −0.110 [−0.362, 0.157] for February, and − 0.173 [−0.314, −0.026 ] for March. Conclusions and Relevance: The lockdown, if implemented correctly in the end, has a high chance of reducing the total number of COVID-19 cases in the short term, and buy India invaluable time to prepare its healthcare and disease monitoring system. Our analysis shows we need to have some measures of suppression in place after the lockdown for the best outcome. We cannot heavily rely on the hypothetical prevention governed by meteorological factors such as temperature based on current evidence. From an epidemiological perspective, a longer lockdown between 42-56 days is preferable. However, the lockdown comes at a tremendous price to social and economic health through a contagion process not dissimilar to that of the coronavirus itself. Data can play a defining role as we design post-lockdown testing, reopening and resource allocation strategies. Software: Our contribution to data science includes an interactive and dynamic app ( covind19.org ) with short- and long-term projections updated daily that can help inform policy and practice related to COVID-19 in India. Anyone can visualize the observed data for India and create predictions under hypothetical scenarios with quantification of uncertainties. We make our prediction codes freely available ( https://github.com/umich-cphds/cov-ind-19 ) for reproducible science and for other COVID-19 affected countries to use them for their prediction and data visualization work.

Structured Importance: Blacks/African-Americans are overrepresented in the number of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Reasons for this disparity have not been well-characterized but may be due to underlying comorbidities or sociodemographic factors. Objective: To systematically determine patient characteristics associated with racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. Design: A retrospective cohort study with comparative control groups. Setting: Patients tested for COVID-19 at University of Michigan Medicine from March 10, 2020 to April 22, 2020. Participants: 5,698 tested patients and two sets of comparison groups who were not tested for COVID-19: randomly selected unmatched controls (n = 7,211) and frequency-matched controls by race, age, and sex (n = 13,351). Main Outcomes and Measures: We identified factors associated with testing and testing positive for COVID-19, being hospitalized, requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality (in/out-patient during the time frame). Factors included race/ethnicity, age, smoking, alcohol consumption, healthcare utilization, and residential-level socioeconomic characteristics (SES; i.e., education, unemployment, population density, and poverty rate). Medical comorbidities were defined from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, and were aggregated into a comorbidity score. Results: Of 5,698 patients, (median age, 47 years; 38% male; mean BMI, 30.1), the majority were non-Hispanic Whites (NHW, 59.2%) and non-Hispanic Black/African-Americans (NHAA, 17.2%). Among 1,119 diagnosed, there were 41.2% NHW and 37.4% NHAA; 44.8% hospitalized, 20.6% admitted to ICU, and 3.8% died. Adjusting for age, sex, and SES, NHAA were 1.66 times more likely to be hospitalized (95% CI, 1.09-2.52; P= .02), 1.52 times more likely to enter ICU (95% CI, 0.92-2.52; P =.10). In addition to older age, male sex and obesity, high population density neighborhood (OR, 1.27 associated with one SD change [95% CI, 1.20-1.76]; P =.02) was associated with hospitalization. Pre-existing kidney disease led to 2.55 times higher risk of hospitalization (95% CI, 1.62-4.02; P <.001) in the overall population and 11.9 times higher mortality risk in NHAA (95% CI, 2.2-64.7, P =.004). Conclusions and Relevance: Pre-existing type II diabetes/kidney diseases and living in high population density areas were associated with high risk for COVID-19 susceptibility and poor prognosis. Association of risk factors with COVID-19 outcomes differed by race. NHAA patients were disproportionately affected by obesity and kidney disease. Key Points: Question: What are the sociodemographic and pre-existing health conditions associated with COVID-19 outcomes and how do they differ by race/ethnicity? Findings: In this retrospective cohort of 5,698 patients tested for COVID-19, high population density and comorbidities such as type II diabetes/kidney disease were associated with hospitalization, in addition to older age, male sex and obesity. Adjusting for covariates, non-Hispanic Blacks were 1.66 times more likely to be hospitalized and 1.52 times more likely to be admitted to ICUs than non-Hispanic Whites. Meaning: Targeted interventions to support vulnerable populations are needed. Racial disparities existed in COVID-19 outcomes that cannot be explained after controlling for age, sex, and socioeconomic status.

India has seen a surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in early part of 2021, despite having controlled the epidemic during 2020. Building on a two-strain, semi-mechanistic model that synthesizes mortality and genomic data, we find evidence that altered epidemiological properties of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant play an important role in this resurgence in India. Under all scenarios of immune evasion, we find an increased transmissibility advantage for B.1617.2 against all previously circulating strains. Using an extended SIR model accounting for reinfections and wanning immunity, we produce evidence in support of how early public interventions in March 2021 would have helped to control transmission in the country. We argue that enhanced genomic surveillance along with constant assessment of risk associated with increased transmission is critical for pandemic responsiveness. One Sentence Summary Altered epidemiological characteristics of B.1.617.2 and delayed public health interventions contributed to the resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 in India from February to May 2021.

Background: We performed a phenome-wide association study to identify pre-existing conditions related to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis across the medical phenome and how they vary by race. Methods: The study is comprised of 53,853 patients who were tested/diagnosed for COVID-19 between 10 March and 2 September 2020 at a large academic medical center. Results: Pre-existing conditions strongly associated with hospitalization were renal failure, pulmonary heart disease, and respiratory failure. Hematopoietic conditions were associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mortality and mental disorders were associated with mortality in non-Hispanic Whites. Circulatory system and genitourinary conditions were associated with ICU admission/mortality in non-Hispanic Blacks. Conclusions: Understanding pre-existing clinical diagnoses related to COVID-19 outcomes informs the need for targeted screening to support specific vulnerable populations to improve disease prevention and healthcare delivery.