Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
BMJ ; 373: n1087, 2021 05 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1226751

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate population health outcomes with delayed second dose versus standard schedule of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. DESIGN: Simulation agent based modeling study. SETTING: Simulated population based on real world US county. PARTICIPANTS: The simulation included 100 000 agents, with a representative distribution of demographics and occupations. Networks of contacts were established to simulate potentially infectious interactions though occupation, household, and random interactions. INTERVENTIONS: Simulation of standard covid-19 vaccination versus delayed second dose vaccination prioritizing the first dose. The simulation runs were replicated 10 times. Sensitivity analyses included first dose vaccine efficacy of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% after day 12 post-vaccination; vaccination rate of 0.1%, 0.3%, and 1% of population per day; assuming the vaccine prevents only symptoms but not asymptomatic spread (that is, non-sterilizing vaccine); and an alternative vaccination strategy that implements delayed second dose for people under 65 years of age, but not until all those above this age have been vaccinated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative covid-19 mortality, cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infections, and cumulative hospital admissions due to covid-19 over 180 days. RESULTS: Over all simulation replications, the median cumulative mortality per 100 000 for standard dosing versus delayed second dose was 226 v 179, 233 v 207, and 235 v 236 for 90%, 80%, and 70% first dose efficacy, respectively. The delayed second dose strategy was optimal for vaccine efficacies at or above 80% and vaccination rates at or below 0.3% of the population per day, under both sterilizing and non-sterilizing vaccine assumptions, resulting in absolute cumulative mortality reductions between 26 and 47 per 100 000. The delayed second dose strategy for people under 65 performed consistently well under all vaccination rates tested. CONCLUSIONS: A delayed second dose vaccination strategy, at least for people aged under 65, could result in reduced cumulative mortality under certain conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Public Health/statistics & numerical data , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Adult , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Hospitalization , Humans , Middle Aged , Occupations , Patient Simulation , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Systems Analysis , Treatment Outcome , Vaccination
2.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 95(9): 1898-1905, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-735304

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To model and compare effect of digital contact tracing versus shelter-in-place on severe acute respiratory syndrome - coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread. METHODS: Using a classical epidemiologic framework and parameters estimated from literature published between February 1, 2020, and May 25, 2020, we modeled two non-pharmacologic interventions - shelter-in-place and digital contact tracing - to curb spread of SARS-CoV-2. For contact tracing, we assumed an advanced automated contact tracing (AACT) application that sends alerts to individuals advising self-isolation based on individual exposure profile. Model parameters included percentage population ordered to shelter-in-place, adoption rate of AACT, and percentage individuals who appropriately follow recommendations. Under influence of these variables, the number of individuals infected, exposed, and isolated were estimated. RESULTS: Without any intervention, a high rate of infection (>10 million) with early peak is predicted. Shelter-in-place results in rapid decline in infection rate at the expense of impacting a large population segment. The AACT model achieves reduction in infected and exposed individuals similar to shelter-in-place without impacting a large number of individuals. For example, a 50% AACT adoption rate mimics a shelter-in-place order for 40% of the population and results in a greater than 90% decrease in peak number of infections. However, as compared to shelter-in-place, with AACT significantly fewer individuals would be isolated. CONCLUSION: Wide adoption of digital contact tracing can mitigate infection spread similar to universal shelter-in-place, but with considerably fewer individuals isolated.


Subject(s)
Communicable Disease Control/methods , Contact Tracing/methods , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Software , Automation , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Isolation
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL