Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
1.
Lancet Reg Health Am ; 20: 100474, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2265190

ABSTRACT

Background: As of September 2022, nearly 1.3 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine products have been administered in Latin America and the Caribbean, where 27% of global COVID-19 deaths have occurred. This study aimed to estimate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against lab-confirmed COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths among adults in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. Methods: Using a test-negative case control design, we evaluated the effectiveness of a primary vaccination series considering six COVID-19 vaccine products (Sputnik V, mRNA-1273, CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S) against lab-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths among 83,708 hospitalized adults from February-December, 2021. Data from hospitalization records, COVID surveillance, and vaccination registries were used. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated using logistic regression ((1-OR) x 100). Findings: The average age of participants was 56.7 (SD = 17.5), and 45,894 (54.8%) were male. Adjusted VE (aVE) estimates for full vaccination against hospitalization were 82% for mRNA-1273 (95% confidence interval (CI) = -30 to 98%), 76% (71%-81%) for BNT162b2, 65% (61-68%) for ChAdOx1, 57% (10-79%) for Sputnik V, 53% (50-56%) for CoronaVac, and 46% (23-62%) for Ad26.COV2.S. Estimates, particularly for CoronaVac, varied by variant. Decreasing aVE was estimated as age increased, particularly for CoronaVac and ChAdOx1. aVE estimates against death were generally higher, with 100% (CI not estimated) for mRNA-1273, 82% (69-90%) for BNT162b2, 73% (69-77%) for ChAdOx1, 65% (60-67%) for CoronaVac, 38% (-75 to 78%) for Sputnik V, 6% (-58 to 44%) for Ad26.COV2.S. Interpretation: Primary series vaccination with available COVID-19 vaccine products was effective against COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality. Effectiveness varied by product and declined with increasing age. Funding: This study was funded by the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO, World Health Organization (WHO)). PAHO convened and led the study implementation.

2.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(1): e25538, 2021 01 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141302

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nowcasting approaches enhance the utility of reportable disease data for trend monitoring by correcting for delays, but implementation details affect accuracy. OBJECTIVE: To support real-time COVID-19 situational awareness, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene used nowcasting to account for testing and reporting delays. We conducted an evaluation to determine which implementation details would yield the most accurate estimated case counts. METHODS: A time-correlated Bayesian approach called Nowcasting by Bayesian Smoothing (NobBS) was applied in real time to line lists of reportable disease surveillance data, accounting for the delay from diagnosis to reporting and the shape of the epidemic curve. We retrospectively evaluated nowcasting performance for confirmed case counts among residents diagnosed during the period from March to May 2020, a period when the median reporting delay was 2 days. RESULTS: Nowcasts with a 2-week moving window and a negative binomial distribution had lower mean absolute error, lower relative root mean square error, and higher 95% prediction interval coverage than nowcasts conducted with a 3-week moving window or with a Poisson distribution. Nowcasts conducted toward the end of the week outperformed nowcasts performed earlier in the week, given fewer patients diagnosed on weekends and lack of day-of-week adjustments. When estimating case counts for weekdays only, metrics were similar across days when the nowcasts were conducted, with Mondays having the lowest mean absolute error of 183 cases in the context of an average daily weekday case count of 2914. CONCLUSIONS: Nowcasting using NobBS can effectively support COVID-19 trend monitoring. Accounting for overdispersion, shortening the moving window, and suppressing diagnoses on weekends-when fewer patients submitted specimens for testing-improved the accuracy of estimated case counts. Nowcasting ensured that recent decreases in observed case counts were not overinterpreted as true declines and supported officials in anticipating the magnitude and timing of hospitalizations and deaths and allocating resources geographically.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Public Health Surveillance/methods , Bayes Theorem , Humans , New York City/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies
3.
Nat Med ; 28(9): 1933-1943, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1890206

ABSTRACT

Epidemiologic surveillance has revealed decoupling of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and deaths from case counts after emergence of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant globally. However, assessment of the relative severity of Omicron variant infections presents challenges because of differential acquired immune protection against Omicron and prior variants and because longer-term changes have occurred in testing and healthcare practices. Here we show that Omicron variant infections were associated with substantially reduced risk of progression to severe clinical outcomes relative to time-matched Delta (B.1.617.2) variant infections within a large, integrated healthcare system in Southern California. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for any hospital admission, symptomatic hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation and death comparing individuals with Omicron versus Delta variant infection were 0.59 (95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.69), 0.59 (0.51-0.68), 0.50 (0.29-0.87), 0.36 (0.18-0.72) and 0.21 (0.10-0.44), respectively. This reduced severity could not be explained by differential history of prior infection among individuals with Omicron or Delta variant infection and was starkest among individuals not previously vaccinated against COVID-19 (aHR = 0.40 (0.33-0.49) for any hospital admission and 0.14 (0.07-0.28) for death). Infections with the Omicron BA.2 subvariant were not associated with differential risk of severe outcomes in comparison to BA.1/BA.1.1 subvariant infections. Lower risk of severe clinical outcomes among individuals with Omicron variant infection should inform public health response amid establishment of the Omicron variant as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 lineage globally.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , California/epidemiology , Humans , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
4.
BMJ Global Health ; 7(Suppl 2):A3, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1870649

ABSTRACT

IntroductionPolicies to increase global vaccine access involve HICs making ethically fraught tradeoffs between saving lives at home or abroad. Such policies should be justifiable to the affected populations. Yet there is little robust data on whether HIC residents endorse their countries’ policy choices. Most existing data asks highly simplified questions, without providing background on the ethical tradeoffs involved. These data do not capture the public’s informed views, giving policymakers limited guidance on how to craft international vaccine policy. This paper provides the first nuanced data on the informed views of a representative sample of the U.S. public about providing COVID vaccine to poorer countries.MethodsThis study involved two interventions: a description of ethical arguments for/against providing vaccine to poorer countries and visuals depiction of ethically relevant tradeoffs about providing vaccine to poorer countries at different time points in the US vaccination campaign. A representative sample of 4000 U.S. adults were surveyed, divided evenly into four arms: 1) arguments only;2) tradeoffs only;3) both interventions;4) no interventions.ResultsAcross all four arms, people are more willing to donate vaccines than previously reported, with generosity increasing over time. 43% of respondents were willing to share at an early timepoint when supply was extremely limited, increasing to 54% and 71% at intermediate and current timepoints, respectively. Some specific variables (e.g., political affiliation, age, acceptability of masks) were predictive of willingness to donate and endorsement of specific arguments.DiscussionThese data can guide policy about providing or keeping U.S. vaccine doses as the world navigates the effects of new variants and the potential need for booster shots in the coming months. Given high levels of willingness to donate, U.S. policy could have initiated global vaccine donations earlier and could be more generous currently.

5.
Am J Epidemiol ; 191(5): 800-811, 2022 03 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1830971

ABSTRACT

Recent studies have provided key information about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines' efficacy and effectiveness (VE). One important question that remains is whether the protection conferred by vaccines wanes over time. However, estimates over time are subject to bias from differential depletion of susceptible individuals between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. We examined the extent to which biases occur under different scenarios and assessed whether serological testing has the potential to correct this bias. By identifying nonvaccine antibodies, these tests could identify individuals with prior infection. We found that in scenarios with high baseline VE, differential depletion of susceptible individuals created minimal bias in VE estimates, suggesting that any observed declines are likely not due to spurious waning alone. However, if baseline VE was lower, the bias for leaky vaccines (which reduce individual probability of infection given contact) was larger and should be corrected for by excluding individuals with past infection if the mechanism is known to be leaky. Conducting analyses both unadjusted and adjusted for past infection could give lower and upper bounds for the true VE. Studies of VE should therefore enroll individuals regardless of prior infection history but also collect information, ideally through serological testing, on this critical variable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Bias , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Disease Susceptibility , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(1): e880-e883, 2022 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1730658

ABSTRACT

Using an agent-based model, we examined the impact of community prevalence, the Delta variant, staff vaccination coverage, and booster vaccines for residents on outbreak dynamics in nursing homes. Increased staff coverage and high booster vaccine effectiveness leads to fewer infections, but cumulative incidence is highly dependent on community transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Nursing Homes , Vaccination
8.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(4): 597-603, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1705201

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents and staff were included in the first phase of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in the United States. Because the primary trial endpoint was vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic disease, there are limited data on the extent to which vaccines protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the ability to infect others (infectiousness). Assumptions about VE against infection and infectiousness have implications for changes to infection prevention guidance for vaccinated populations, including testing strategies. METHODS: We use a stochastic agent-based Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious (Asymptomatic/Symptomatic)-Recovered model of a nursing home to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We model 3 scenarios, varying VE against infection, infectiousness, and symptoms, to understand the expected impact of vaccination in nursing homes, increasing staff vaccination coverage, and different screening testing strategies under each scenario. RESULTS: Increasing vaccination coverage in staff decreases total symptomatic cases in the nursing home (among staff and residents combined) in each VE scenario. In scenarios with 50% and 90% VE against infection and infectiousness, increasing staff coverage reduces symptomatic cases among residents. If vaccination only protects against symptoms, and asymptomatic cases remain infectious, increased staff coverage increases symptomatic cases among residents. However, this is outweighed by the reduction in symptomatic cases among staff. Higher frequency testing-more than once weekly-is needed to reduce total symptomatic cases if the vaccine has lower efficacy against infection and infectiousness, or only protects against symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging staff vaccination is not only important for protecting staff, but might also reduce symptomatic cases in residents if a vaccine confers at least some protection against infection or infectiousness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Nursing Homes , SARS-CoV-2 , Skilled Nursing Facilities , United States , Vaccination
9.
J Infect Dis ; 224(10): 1664-1671, 2021 11 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1634468

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a heavy disease burden globally. The impact of process and timing of data collection on the accuracy of estimation of key epidemiological distributions are unclear. Because infection times are typically unobserved, there are relatively few estimates of generation time distribution. METHODS: We developed a statistical framework to jointly estimate generation time and incubation period from human-to-human transmission pairs, accounting for sampling biases. We applied the framework on 80 laboratory-confirmed human-to-human transmission pairs in China. We further inferred the infectiousness profile, serial interval distribution, proportions of presymptomatic transmission, and basic reproduction number (R0) for COVID-19. RESULTS: The estimated mean incubation period was 4.8 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1-5.6), and mean generation time was 5.7 days (95% CI, 4.8-6.5). The estimated R0 based on the estimated generation time was 2.2 (95% CI, 1.9-2.4). A simulation study suggested that our approach could provide unbiased estimates, insensitive to the width of exposure windows. CONCLUSIONS: Properly accounting for the timing and process of data collection is critical to have correct estimates of generation time and incubation period. R0 can be biased when it is derived based on serial interval as the proxy of generation time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Basic Reproduction Number , China/epidemiology , Humans , Infectious Disease Incubation Period , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Vaccine X ; 10: 100134, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587103

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were shown to reduce risk of severe COVID-19 illness. Local, population-level, real-world evidence of vaccine effectiveness is accumulating. We assessed vaccine effectiveness for community-dwelling New York City (NYC) residents using a quasi-experimental, regression discontinuity design, leveraging a period (January 12-March 9, 2021) when ≥ 65-year-olds were vaccine-eligible but younger persons, excluding essential workers, were not. METHODS: We constructed segmented, negative binomial regression models of age-specific COVID-19 hospitalization rates among 45-84-year-old NYC residents during a post-vaccination program implementation period (February 21-April 17, 2021), with a discontinuity at age 65 years. The relationship between age and hospitalization rates in an unvaccinated population was incorporated using a pre-implementation period (December 20, 2020-February 13, 2021). We calculated the rate ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the interaction between implementation period (pre or post) and age-based eligibility (45-64 or 65-84 years). Analyses were stratified by race/ethnicity and borough of residence. Similar analyses were conducted for COVID-19 deaths. RESULTS: Hospitalization rates among 65-84-year-olds decreased from pre- to post-implementation periods (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74-0.97), controlling for trends among 45-64-year-olds. Accordingly, an estimated 721 (95% CI: 126-1,241) hospitalizations were averted. Residents just above the eligibility threshold (65-66-year-olds) had lower hospitalization rates than those below (63-64-year-olds). Racial/ethnic groups and boroughs with higher vaccine coverage generally experienced greater reductions in RR point estimates. Uncertainty was greater for the decrease in COVID-19 death rates (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.66-1.10). CONCLUSION: The vaccination program in NYC reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations among the initially age-eligible ≥ 65-year-old population by approximately 15% in the first eight weeks. The real-world evidence of vaccine effectiveness makes it more imperative to improve vaccine access and uptake to reduce inequities in COVID-19 outcomes.

11.
Int J Infect Dis ; 113: 325-330, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1521040

ABSTRACT

Objectives Universities have turned to SARS-CoV-2 models to examine campus reopening strategies. While these studies have explored a variety of modeling techniques, none have used empirical data. Methods In this study, we use an empirical proximity network of college freshmen obtained using smartphone Bluetooth to simulate the spread of the virus. We investigate the role of immunization, testing, isolation, mask wearing, and social distancing in the presence of implementation challenges and imperfect compliance. Results We show that frequent testing could drastically reduce the spread of the virus if levels of immunity are low, but its effects are limited if immunity is more ubiquitous. Furthermore, moderate levels of mask wearing and social distancing could lead to additional reductions in cumulative incidence, but their benefit decreases rapidly as immunity and testing frequency increase. However, if immunity from vaccination is imperfect or declines over time, scenarios not studied here, frequent testing and other interventions may play more central roles. Conclusions Our findings suggest that although regular testing and isolation are powerful tools, they have limited benefit if immunity is high or other interventions are widely adopted. If universities can attain even moderate levels of vaccination, masking, and social distancing, they may be able to relax the frequency of testing to once every four weeks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Incidence , Universities
12.
Cell ; 184(26): 6229-6242.e18, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1520753

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern exhibit varying degrees of transmissibility and, in some cases, escape from acquired immunity. Much effort has been devoted to measuring these phenotypes, but understanding their impact on the course of the pandemic-especially that of immune escape-has remained a challenge. Here, we use a mathematical model to simulate the dynamics of wild-type and variant strains of SARS-CoV-2 in the context of vaccine rollout and nonpharmaceutical interventions. We show that variants with enhanced transmissibility frequently increase epidemic severity, whereas those with partial immune escape either fail to spread widely or primarily cause reinfections and breakthrough infections. However, when these phenotypes are combined, a variant can continue spreading even as immunity builds up in the population, limiting the impact of vaccination and exacerbating the epidemic. These findings help explain the trajectories of past and present SARS-CoV-2 variants and may inform variant assessment and response in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/transmission , Immune Evasion , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Computer Simulation , Humans , Immunity , Models, Biological , Reinfection , Vaccination
13.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 6995, 2021 03 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1387469

ABSTRACT

In response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, unprecedented travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders were enacted around the world. Ultimately, the public's response to announcements of lockdowns-defined as restrictions on both local movement or long distance travel-will determine how effective these kinds of interventions are. Here, we evaluate the effects of lockdowns on human mobility and simulate how these changes may affect epidemic spread by analyzing aggregated mobility data from mobile phones. We show that in 2020 following lockdown announcements but prior to their implementation, both local and long distance movement increased in multiple locations, and urban-to-rural migration was observed around the world. To examine how these behavioral responses to lockdown policies may contribute to epidemic spread, we developed a simple agent-based spatial model. Our model shows that this increased movement has the potential to increase seeding of the epidemic in less urban areas, which could undermine the goal of the lockdown in preventing disease spread. Lockdowns play a key role in reducing contacts and controlling outbreaks, but appropriate messaging surrounding their announcement and careful evaluation of changes in mobility are needed to mitigate the possible unintended consequences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Movement , Quarantine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Travel
14.
medRxiv ; 2020 May 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388077

ABSTRACT

The extent and duration of immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection are critical outstanding questions about the epidemiology of this novel virus, and studies are needed to evaluate the effects of serostatus on reinfection. Understanding the potential sources of bias and methods to alleviate biases in these studies is important for informing their design and analysis. Confounding by individual-level risk factors in observational studies like these is relatively well appreciated. Here, we show how geographic structure and the underlying, natural dynamics of epidemics can also induce noncausal associations. We take the approach of simulating serologic studies in the context of an uncontrolled or a controlled epidemic, under different assumptions about whether prior infection does or does not protect an individual against subsequent infection, and using various designs and analytic approaches to analyze the simulated data. We find that in studies assessing the efficacy of serostatus on future infection, comparing seropositive individuals to seronegative individuals with similar time-dependent patterns of exposure to infection, by stratifying or matching on geographic location and time of enrollment, is essential to prevent bias.

15.
Epidemiology ; 32(6): 820-828, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1381051

ABSTRACT

Determining policies to end the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will require an understanding of the efficacy and effectiveness (hereafter, efficacy) of vaccines. Beyond the efficacy against severe disease and symptomatic and asymptomatic infection, understanding vaccine efficacy against virus transmission, including efficacy against transmission of different viral variants, will help model epidemic trajectory and determine appropriate control measures. Recent studies have proposed using random virologic testing in individual randomized controlled trials to improve estimation of vaccine efficacy against infection. We propose to further use the viral load measures from these tests to estimate efficacy against transmission. This estimation requires a model of the relationship between viral load and transmissibility and assumptions about the vaccine effect on transmission and the progress of the epidemic. We describe these key assumptions, potential violations of them, and solutions that can be implemented to mitigate these violations. Assessing these assumptions and implementing this random sampling, with viral load measures, will enable better estimation of the crucial measure of vaccine efficacy against transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load
16.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 7: 100150, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300933

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 was shown to be 92% effective in preventing COVID-19. Prioritizing vaccine rollout, and achievement of herd immunity depend on SARS-CoV-2 transmission reduction. The vaccine's effect on infectivity is thus a critical priority. METHODS: Among all 9650 HCW of a large tertiary medical center in Israel, we calculated the prevalence of positive SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR cases with asymptomatic presentation, tested following known or presumed exposure and the infectious subset (N-gene-Ct-value<30) of these. Additionally, infection incidence rates were calculated for symptomatic cases and infectious (Ct<30) cases. Vaccine effectiveness within three months of vaccine rollout was measured as one minus the relative risk or rate ratio, respectively. To further assess infectiousness, we compared the mean Ct-value and the proportion of infections with a positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen test of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. The correlation between IgG levels within the week before detection and Ct level was assessed. FINDINGS: Reduced prevalence among fully vaccinated HCW was observed for (i) infections detected due to exposure, with asymptomatic presentation (VE(i)=65.1%, 95%CI 45-79%), (ii) the presumed infectious (Ct<30) subset of these (VE(ii)=69.6%, 95%CI 43-84%) (iii) never-symptomatic infections (VE(iii)=72.3%, 95%CI 48-86%), and (iv) the presumed infectious (Ct<30) subset (VE(iv)=83.0%, 95%CI 51-94%).Incidence of (v) symptomatic and (vi) symptomatic-infectious cases was significantly lower among fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals (VE(v)= 89.7%, 95%CI 84-94%, VE(vi)=88.1%, 95%CI 80-95%).The mean Ct-value was significantly higher in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (27.3±1.2 vs. 22.2±1.0, p<0.001) and the proportion of positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests was also significantly lower among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated PCR-positive HCW (80% vs. 31%, p<0.001). Lower infectivity was correlated with higher IgG concentrations (R=0.36, p=0.01). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that BNT162b2 is moderately to highly effective in reducing infectivity, via preventing infection and through reducing viral shedding. FUNDING: Sheba Medical Center, Israel.

17.
Vaccine ; 39(30): 4082-4088, 2021 07 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1267951

ABSTRACT

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown high efficacy of multiple vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19), and recent studies have shown the vaccines are also effective against infection. Evidence for the effect of each of these vaccines on ability to transmit the virus is also beginning to emerge. We describe an approach to estimate these vaccines' effects on viral positivity, a prevalence measure which under the reasonable assumption that vaccinated individuals who become infected are no more infectious than unvaccinated individuals forms a lower bound on efficacy against transmission. Specifically, we recommend separate analysis of positive tests triggered by symptoms (usually the primary RCT outcome) and cross-sectional prevalence of positive tests obtained regardless of symptoms. The odds ratio of carriage for vaccine vs. placebo provides an unbiased estimate of vaccine effectiveness against viral positivity, under certain assumptions, and we show through simulations that likely departures from these assumptions will only modestly bias this estimate. Applying this approach to published data from the RCT of the Moderna vaccine, we estimate that one dose of vaccine reduces the potential for transmission by at least 61%, possibly considerably more. We describe how these approaches can be translated into observational studies of vaccine effectiveness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Bias , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
19.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(5): e2110071, 2021 05 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1227701

ABSTRACT

Importance: Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Strategies are urgently needed to reduce transmission in these high-risk populations. Objective: To evaluate COVID-19 transmission in nursing homes associated with contact-targeted interventions and testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical modeling study developed an agent-based susceptible-exposed-infectious (asymptomatic/symptomatic)-recovered model between July and September 2020 to examine SARS-CoV-2 transmission in nursing homes. Residents and staff of a simulated nursing home with 100 residents and 100 staff split among 3 shifts were modeled individually; residents were split into 2 cohorts based on COVID-19 diagnosis. Data were analyzed from September to October 2020. Exposures: In the resident cohorting intervention, residents who had recovered from COVID-19 were moved back from the COVID-19 (ie, infected with SARS-CoV-2) cohort to the non-COVID-19 (ie, susceptible and uninfected with SARS-CoV-2) cohort. In the immunity-based staffing intervention, staff who had recovered from COVID-19 were assumed to have protective immunity and were assigned to work in the non-COVID-19 cohort, while susceptible staff worked in the COVID-19 cohort and were assumed to have high levels of protection from personal protective equipment. These interventions aimed to reduce the fraction of people's contacts that were presumed susceptible (and therefore potentially infected) and replaced them with recovered (immune) contacts. A secondary aim of was to evaluate cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections associated with 2 types of screening tests (ie, rapid antigen testing and polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing) conducted with varying frequency. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated cumulative incidence proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 3 months. Results: Among the simulated cohort of 100 residents and 100 staff members, frequency and type of testing were associated with smaller outbreaks than the cohorting and staffing interventions. The testing strategy associated with the greatest estimated reduction in infections was daily antigen testing, which reduced the mean cumulative incidence proportion by 49% in absence of contact-targeted interventions. Under all screening testing strategies, the resident cohorting intervention and the immunity-based staffing intervention were associated with reducing the final estimated size of the outbreak among residents, with the immunity-based staffing intervention reducing it more (eg, by 19% in the absence of testing) than the resident cohorting intervention (eg, by 8% in the absence of testing). The estimated reduction in transmission associated with these interventions among staff varied by testing strategy and community prevalence. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that increasing the frequency of screening testing of all residents and staff, or even staff alone, in nursing homes may reduce outbreaks in this high-risk setting. Immunity-based staffing may further reduce spread at little or no additional cost and becomes particularly important when daily testing is not feasible.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Homes for the Aged , Nursing Homes , Personnel Staffing and Scheduling/organization & administration , Adaptive Immunity , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Decision Support Techniques , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment , Viral Load , Vulnerable Populations
20.
Eur J Epidemiol ; 36(2): 179-196, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1103484

ABSTRACT

In response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, public health scientists have produced a large and rapidly expanding body of literature that aims to answer critical questions, such as the proportion of the population in a geographic area that has been infected; the transmissibility of the virus and factors associated with high infectiousness or susceptibility to infection; which groups are the most at risk of infection, morbidity and mortality; and the degree to which antibodies confer protection to re-infection. Observational studies are subject to a number of different biases, including confounding, selection bias, and measurement error, that may threaten their validity or influence the interpretation of their results. To assist in the critical evaluation of a vast body of literature and contribute to future study design, we outline and propose solutions to biases that can occur across different categories of observational studies of COVID-19. We consider potential biases that could occur in five categories of studies: (1) cross-sectional seroprevalence, (2) longitudinal seroprotection, (3) risk factor studies to inform interventions, (4) studies to estimate the secondary attack rate, and (5) studies that use secondary attack rates to make inferences about infectiousness and susceptibility.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Research Design , Bias , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL