Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Vaccine ; 2021 Sep 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2272660

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since July 2019, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been facing an outbreak of serotype-2 circulating vaccine derived poliovirus (cVDPV2) in addition to continued transmission of serotype-1 wild poliovirus (WPV1) and SARS-CoV-2 in 2020. Understanding the risks of cVDPV2 transmission due to pause of global vaccination efforts and the impact of potential vaccination response strategies in the current context of COVID-19 mitigation measures is critical. METHODS: We developed a stochastic, geographically structured mathematical model of cVDPV2 transmission which captures both mucosal and humoral immunity separately and allows for reversion of serotype-2 oral polio vaccine (OPV2) virus to cVDPV2 following vaccine administration. The model includes geographic heterogeneities in vaccination coverage, population immunity and population movement. The model was fitted to historic cVDPV2 cases in Pakistan and Afghanistan between January 2010-April 2016 and July 2019-March 2020 using iterated particle filtering. The model was used to simulate spread of cVDPV2 infection from July 2019 to explore impact of various proposed vaccination responses on stopping transmission and risk of spread of reverted Sabin-2 under varying assumptions of impacts from COVID-19 lockdown measures on movement patterns as well as declines in vaccination coverage. RESULTS: Simulated monthly incidence of cVDPV2 from the best-fit model demonstrated general spatio-temporal alignment with observed cVDPV2 cases. The model predicted substantial spread of cVDPV2 infection, with widespread transmission through 2020 in the absence of any vaccination activities. Vaccination responses were predicted to substantially reduce transmission and case burden, with a greater impact from earlier responses and those with larger geographic scope. While the greatest risk of seeding reverted Sabin-2 was predicted in areas targeted with OPV2, subsequent spread was greatest in areas with no or delayed response. The proposed vaccination strategy demonstrated ability to stop the cVDPV2 outbreak (with low risk of reverted Sabin-2 spread) by February 2021. CONCLUSION: Outbreak response vaccination campaigns against cVDPV2 will be challenging throughout the COVID-19 pandemic but must be implemented urgently when feasible to stop transmission of cVDPV2.

2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(1): e764-e773, 2022 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2017772

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Phase III trials have estimated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic and asymptomatic infection. We explore the direction and magnitude of potential biases in these estimates and their implications for vaccine protection against infection and against disease in breakthrough infections. METHODS: We developed a mathematical model that accounts for natural and vaccine-induced immunity, changes in serostatus, and imperfect sensitivity and specificity of tests for infection and antibodies. We estimated expected biases in VE against symptomatic, asymptomatic, and any severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and against disease following infection for a range of vaccine characteristics and measurement approaches, and the likely overall biases for published trial results that included asymptomatic infections. RESULTS: VE against asymptomatic infection measured by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or serology is expected to be low or negative for vaccines that prevent disease but not infection. VE against any infection is overestimated when asymptomatic infections are less likely to be detected than symptomatic infections and the vaccine protects against symptom development. A competing bias toward underestimation arises for estimates based on tests with imperfect specificity, especially when testing is performed frequently. Our model indicates considerable uncertainty in Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S VE against any infection, with slightly higher than published, bias-adjusted values of 59.0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 38.4-77.1) and 70.9% (95% UI 49.8-80.7), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple biases are likely to influence COVID-19 VE estimates, potentially explaining the observed difference between ChAdOx1 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. These biases should be considered when interpreting both efficacy and effectiveness study results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Ad26COVS1 , Asymptomatic Infections , Bias , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccine Efficacy
3.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(4): 759-766, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1770997

ABSTRACT

India reported >10 million coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cases and 149,000 deaths in 2020. To reassess reported deaths and estimate incidence rates during the first 6 months of the epidemic, we used a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission model fit to data from 3 serosurveys in Delhi and time-series documentation of reported deaths. We estimated 48.7% (95% credible interval 22.1%-76.8%) cumulative infection in the population through the end of September 2020. Using an age-adjusted overall infection fatality ratio based on age-specific estimates from mostly high-income countries, we estimated that just 15.0% (95% credible interval 9.3%-34.0%) of COVID-19 deaths had been reported, indicating either substantial underreporting or lower age-specific infection-fatality ratios in India than in high-income countries. Despite the estimated high attack rate, additional epidemic waves occurred in late 2020 and April-May 2021. Future dynamics will depend on the duration of natural and vaccine-induced immunity and their effectiveness against new variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epidemics , Humans , Incidence , India/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 20(12): 1381-1389, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1009966

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: WHO has called for increased testing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but countries have taken different approaches and the effectiveness of alternative strategies is unknown. We aimed to investigate the potential impact of different testing and isolation strategies on transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We developed a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission based on infectiousness and PCR test sensitivity over time since infection. We estimated the reduction in the effective reproduction number (R) achieved by testing and isolating symptomatic individuals, regular screening of high-risk groups irrespective of symptoms, and quarantine of contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases identified through test-and-trace protocols. The expected effectiveness of different testing strategies was defined as the percentage reduction in R. We reviewed data on the performance of antibody tests reported by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and examined their implications for the use of so-called immunity passports. FINDINGS: If all individuals with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 self-isolated and self-isolation was 100% effective in reducing onwards transmission, self-isolation of symptomatic individuals would result in a reduction in R of 47% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 32-55). PCR testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection soon after symptom onset could reduce the number of individuals needing to self-isolate, but would also reduce the effectiveness of self-isolation (around 10% would be false negatives). Weekly screening of health-care workers and other high-risk groups irrespective of symptoms by use of PCR testing is estimated to reduce their contribution to SARS-CoV-2 transmission by 23% (95% UI 16-40), on top of reductions achieved by self-isolation following symptoms, assuming results are available at 24 h. The effectiveness of test and trace depends strongly on coverage and the timeliness of contact tracing, potentially reducing R by 26% (95% UI 14-35) on top of reductions achieved by self-isolation following symptoms, if 80% of cases and contacts are identified and there is immediate testing following symptom onset and quarantine of contacts within 24 h. Among currently available antibody tests, performance has been highly variable, with specificity around 90% or lower for rapid diagnostic tests and 95-99% for laboratory-based ELISA and chemiluminescent assays. INTERPRETATION: Molecular testing can play an important role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially among health-care workers and other high-risk groups, but no single strategy will reduce R below 1 at current levels of population immunity. Immunity passports based on antibody tests or tests for infection face substantial technical, legal, and ethical challenges. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Mass Screening/methods , Asymptomatic Infections , Basic Reproduction Number , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Contact Tracing , Health Personnel , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL