Observational studyThe Lancet. Public health2021
Genomics-informed responses in the elimination of COVID-19 in Victoria, Australia: an observational, genomic epidemiological study.
Observational study in The Lancet. Public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 46 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
46 citing papers in PubMed.
- Describing the outcomes and factors of using pathogen genomic results in public health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Induction of dysfunctional CD14Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Intra-host variation and transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron outbreaks in Shandong, China.mSphere · 2025Article
- Communicable diseases genomics network: promoting and harmonising pathogen genomics implementation for public health in Australia.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- Molecular Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Bangladesh.Viruses · 2025Article
- How does date-rounding affect phylodynamic inference for public health?PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Genomic interrogation of invasive group AThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Exploring SNP filtering strategies: the influence of strict vs soft core.Microbial genomics · 2025Article
- Adopting Public Health Genomics when the House Is on Fire: How Will We Navigate to 2030?Public health genomics · 2025Article
- Singapore's COVID-19 Genomic Surveillance Programme: Strategies and Insights From a Pandemic Year.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2024Article
- Identifying factors that influence the use of pathogen genomics in Australia and New Zealand: a protocol.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Bioinformatic investigation of discordant sequence data for SARS-CoV-2: insights for robust genomic analysis during pandemic surveillance.Microbial genomics · 2023Article
- Quantifying the human impact of Melbourne's 111-day hard lockdown experiment on the adult population.Nature human behaviour · 2023Article
- Genomic epidemiology offers high resolution estimates of serial intervals for COVID-19.Nature communications · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 mouse adaptation selects virulence mutations that cause TNF-driven age-dependent severe disease with human correlates.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- The importance of utilizing travel history metadata for informative phylogeographical inferences: a case study of early SARS-CoV-2 introductions into Australia.Microbial genomics · 2023Article
- Public health implementation of pathogen genomics: the role for accreditation and application of ISO standards.Microbial genomics · 2023Article
- Intra- and interhost genomic diversity of monkeypox virus.Journal of medical virology · 2023Article
- Testing for COVID-19: a 2023 update.Australian prescriber · 2023Review
- Decoding the Fundamental Drivers of Phylodynamic Inference.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA cornerstone of Australia's ability to control COVID-19 has been effective border control with an extensive supervised quarantine programme. However, a rapid recrudescence of COVID-19 was observed in the state of Victoria in June, 2020. We aim to describe the genomic findings that located the source of this second wave and show the role of genomic epidemiology in the successful elimination of COVID-19 for a second time in Australia.
methodsIn this observational, genomic epidemiological study, we did genomic sequencing of all laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 diagnosed in Victoria, Australia between Jan 25, 2020, and Jan 31, 2021. We did phylogenetic analyses, genomic cluster discovery, and integrated results with epidemiological data (detailed information on demographics, risk factors, and exposure) collected via interview by the Victorian Government Department of Health. Genomic transmission networks were used to group multiple genomic clusters when epidemiological and genomic data suggested they arose from a single importation event and diversified within Victoria. To identify transmission of emergent lineages between Victoria and other states or territories in Australia, all publicly available SARS-CoV-2 sequences uploaded before Feb 11, 2021, were obtained from the national sequence sharing programme AusTrakka, and epidemiological data were obtained from the submitting laboratories. We did phylodynamic analyses to estimate the growth rate, doubling time, and number of days from the first local infection to the collection of the first sequenced genome for the dominant local cluster, and compared our growth estimates to previously published estimates from a similar growth phase of lineage B.1.1.7 (also known as the Alpha variant) in the UK.
findingsBetween Jan 25, 2020, and Jan 31, 2021, there were 20 451 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Victoria, Australia, of which 15 431 were submitted for sequencing, and 11 711 met all quality control metrics and were included in our analysis. We identified 595 genomic clusters, with a median of five cases per cluster (IQR 2-11). Overall, samples from 11 503 (98·2%) of 11 711 cases clustered with another sample in Victoria, either within a genomic cluster or transmission network. Genomic analysis revealed that 10 426 cases, including 10 416 (98·4%) of 10 584 locally acquired cases, diagnosed during the second wave (between June and October, 2020) were derived from a single incursion from hotel quarantine, with the outbreak lineage (transmission network G, lineage D.2) rapidly detected in other Australian states and territories. Phylodynamic analyses indicated that the epidemic growth rate of the outbreak lineage in Victoria during the initial growth phase (samples collected between June 4 and July 9, 2020; 47·4 putative transmission events, per branch, per year [1/years; 95% credible interval 26·0-85·0]), was similar to that of other reported variants, such as B.1.1.7 in the UK (mean approximately 71·5 1/years). Strict interventions were implemented, and the outbreak lineage has not been detected in Australia since Oct 29, 2020. Subsequent cases represented independent international or interstate introductions, with limited local spread.
interpretationOur study highlights how rapid escalation of clonal outbreaks can occur from a single incursion. However, strict quarantine measures and decisive public health responses to emergent cases are effective, even with high epidemic growth rates. Real-time genomic surveillance can alter the way in which public health agencies view and respond to COVID-19 outbreaks.
fundingThe Victorian Government, the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, and the Medical Research Future Fund.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.