ABSTRACT
Background: Uptake of COVID-19 bivalent vaccines and oral medication nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) has remained low across the United States. Assessing the public health impact of increasing uptake of these interventions in key risk groups can guide further public health resources and policy. Methods: This modeling study used person-level data from the California Department of Public Health on COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and vaccine administration from July 23, 2022 to January 23, 2023. We modeled the impact of additional uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir during acute illness in different risk groups defined by age (50+, 65+, 75+ years) and vaccination status (everyone, primary series only, previously vaccinated). We predicted the number of averted COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths and number needed to treat (NNT). Results: For both bivalent vaccines and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, the most efficient strategy (based on NNT) for averting severe COVID-19 was targeting the 75+ years group. We predicted that perfect coverage of bivalent boosters in the 75+ years group would avert 3,920 hospitalizations (95%UI: 2,491-4,882; 7.8% total averted; NNT 387) and 1,074 deaths (95%UI: 774-1,355; 16.2% total averted; NNT 1,410). Perfect uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in the 75+ years group would avert 5,644 hospitalizations (95%UI: 3,947-6,826; 11.2% total averted; NNT 11) and 1,669 deaths (95%UI: 1,053-2,038; 25.2% total averted; NNT 35). Conclusions: These findings suggest prioritizing uptake of bivalent boosters and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir among the oldest age groups would be efficient and have substantial public health impact in reducing the burden of severe COVID-19, but would not address the entire burden of severe COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of infectious disease forecasting in informing public policy. However, significant barriers remain for effectively linking infectious disease forecasts to public health decision making, including a lack of model validation. Forecasting model performance and accuracy should be evaluated retrospectively to understand under which conditions models were reliable and could be improved in the future. Using archived forecasts from the California Department of Public Health's California COVID Assessment Tool (https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/cacovidmodels/), we compared how well different forecasting models predicted COVID-19 hospitalization census across California counties and regions during periods of Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variant predominance. Based on mean absolute error estimates, forecasting models had variable performance across counties and through time. When accounting for model availability across counties and dates, some individual models performed consistently better than the ensemble model, but model rankings still differed across counties. Local transmission trends, variant prevalence, and county population size were informative predictors for determining which model performed best for a given county based on a random forest classification analysis. Overall, the ensemble model performed worse in less populous counties, in part because of fewer model contributors in these locations. Ensemble model predictions could be improved by incorporating geographic heterogeneity in model coverage and performance. Consistency in model reporting and improved model validation can strengthen the role of infectious disease forecasting in real-time public health decision making.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Encephalitis, California , Communicable DiseasesABSTRACT
Vaccination and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but their effectiveness depends on coverage and adherence levels. We used scenario modeling to evaluate their effects on cases and deaths averted and herd immunity. NPIs and vaccines worked synergistically in different parts of the pandemic to reduce disease burden.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
A critical question in the COVID-19 pandemic is how to optimally allocate the first available vaccinations to maximize health impact. We used a static simulation model with detailed demographic and risk factor stratification to compare the impact of different vaccine prioritization strategies in the United States on key health outcomes, using California as a case example. We calibrated the model to demographic and location data on 28,175 COVID-19 deaths in California up to December 30, 2020, and incorporated variation in risk by occupation and comorbidity status using published estimates. We predicted the proportion of COVID-19 clinical cases, deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted over 6 months relative to a scenario of no vaccination for five vaccination strategies that prioritized vaccination by a single risk factor: random allocation; targeting special populations (e.g. incarcerated individuals); targeting older individuals; targeting essential workers; and targeting individuals with comorbidities. Targeting older individuals averted the highest proportion of DALYs (40% for 5 million individuals vaccinated) and deaths (65%) but the lowest proportion of cases (12%). Targeting essential workers averted the lowest proportion of DALYs (25%) and deaths (33%). Allocating vaccinations simultaneously by age and location or by age, sex, race/ethnicity, location, occupation, and comorbidity status averted a significantly higher proportion of DALYs (48% and 56%) than any strategy prioritizing by a single risk factor. Our results corroborate findings of other studies that age targeting is the best single-risk-factor prioritization strategy for averting DALYs, and suggest that targeting by multiple risk factors would provide additional benefit.