#16.910
Although pundits, politicians, and even some public health experts often try to sound confident about our understanding of our COVID pandemic - where it is headed, and and it is still capable of - the simple truth is we are in unexplored territory.
As much as we've learned over the past 2+ years - and we've learned a lot - we still have major gaps in our knowledge of SARS-COV-2, and just as likely, whatever novel virus that follows in the years to come.
The old adage, `That if you've seen one pandemic, you've seen one pandemic', still holds true.
Old truths and conventional wisdom - such as `a pandemic could last up to 18 months', or `it could come in 3 waves' - were based largely on the influenza pandemic of 1918, and have been rendered obsolete by COVID-19.
Assurances - based on the 2003 SARS-CoV epidemic - that COVID-19 couldn't transmit asymptomatically, or via aerosols, have proven similarly invalid.
Thirty-plus months into our coronavirus pandemic, the ECDC has published an expert consultation that identifies twenty-two high-level research gaps that remain with COVID-19.
First, the executive summary, followed by a link to (and some excerpts from) the full 15-page report.While these aren't the only remaining knowledge gaps surrounding COVID-19, these were the ones that were prioritized by EU expert groups.
ECDC expert consultation on knowledge and research gaps related to the COVID-19 public health response
Publication
29 Jul 2022
Report on the ECDC expert consultation to identify knowledge and research gaps related to the COVID-19 public health response.
Executive summary
- In February 2022, after two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) undertook a consultation to identify knowledge and research gaps related to the COVID-19 public health response. The aim of this work was to inform future research activities that enhance the existing evidence base, support knowledge generation and synthesis, and reduce the level of policy uncertainty in addressing public health actions against COVID-19.
- A two-step qualitative process that utilised both internal and external expertise was used to identify and prioritise research gaps that remain pertinent for public health action at present and that may have increasing relevance to inform policy in the coming months, given the current trajectory of the pandemic in early 2022.
- Twenty-two high-level research gaps were identified during semi-structured interviews with internal ECDC expert groups from various COVID-19 domains. The 22 research gaps were consolidated and organised into three thematic areas; ‘COVID-19 biology and the intersection with human host populations’, ‘Pandemic response: effectiveness of control measures and impact of behavioural, political and social context’ and ‘Pandemic (re-)emergence and new variants’.
- The research gaps under each thematic area were presented to the ECDC Advisory Forum, a group of senior EU/EEA representatives mandated to advise ECDC on scientific issues. Advisory Forum members ranked the research gaps within each thematic area using a predefined set of criteria to provide insight into the relative priority of each research gap and to inform future research action. Notably, each of the 22 research gaps received support as a high-priority area for further research from at least one Advisory Forum member. There was also consensus on the highest priority research gaps within each thematic area.
- Research gaps that were selected as one of the top three priorities in their thematic areas by 80% or more of the Advisory Forum members included: research to improve understandings of ‘immunity and immune response’, characterisation of the ‘burden of disease’ and overall clinical impact, ‘the systematic evaluation of prevention and control measures’ and ‘novel surveillance and monitoring strategies’.
ECDC expert consultation on knowledge and research gaps related to the COVID-19 public health response- EN - [PDF-561.34 KB]
(Excerpts)
Identification of knowledge and research gaps
A qualitative, semi-structured group interview methodology was used to collect the opinions of ECDC experts on knowledge and research gaps within eight different topic domains related to the COVID-19 public health response. Groups were chosen based on pre-existing structures within ECDC’s Public Health Emergency (PHE) and COVID-19 response activities, and to reflect the different areas of technical responsibility. Each group offered detailed expertise and understanding of the existing knowledge base in their areas of responsibility, informed by ongoing appraisal and synthesis of the evolving evidence base and regular consultation with public health professionals in EU/EEA countries. The consulted experts were therefore well suited to provide an overview of current scientific uncertainty and knowledge shortfalls in each technical domain, as well as knowledge needs that may inform future policy action given the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic and its trajectory.
One-hour meetings were arranged with each group in the week beginning 31 January 2022. The ECDC Research Coordinator who led the process, started each meeting by presenting a short introduction of the project. Participants were also advised that the discussion should be framed by the following aims and scope. These were also shared in advance of each meeting.
Aims
The aims of the exercise were to:
• capture and review existing knowledge gaps related to SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 public health response, within the context of the various technical areas under ECDC’s mandate,
• inform decisions on the prioritisation and allocation of research resources to address the current situation, and
• identify research necessary to inform the ‘new normal’ (i.e. pre-emptive research that could be undertaken now to reduce future policy uncertainty, given the current trajectory of the pandemic).
Scope
The scope of the exercise comprised the following:
• The focus of the exercise was on identifying and assessing knowledge gaps relevant to immediate and longerterm policy actions, including interventions, preparedness, modelling inputs and public health actions.
• The resulting output would focus on informing decisions related to research starting months or years in the future.
• The primary audience for the output is EU research funders, but the output should also be of relevance to ECDC work plans, national public health institutes and national funders.
Knowledge gaps and research priority proposals were considered out of scope if they related to:
• research targeting immediate actions (epidemiological characterisation, virological typing etc.) or• internal operations (e.g. priorities/actions arising from after-action review of ECDC activities).
(SNIP)
I've only posted some small excerpts, and the first 5 `gaps' identified in the report. Follow the link to read the report in its entirety.
