Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 12: 100267, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1540829

ABSTRACT

Background: Countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region differ in terms of the COVID-19 vaccine supply conditions. We evaluated the health and economic impact of different age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies across this demographically and socio-economically diverse region. Methods: We fitted age-specific compartmental models to the reported daily COVID-19 mortality in 2020 to inform the immunity level before vaccine roll-out. Models capture country-specific differences in population structures, contact patterns, epidemic history, life expectancy, and GDP per capita.We examined four strategies that prioritise: all adults (V+), younger (20-59 year-olds) followed by older adults (60+) (V20), older followed by younger adults (V60), and the oldest adults (75+) (V75) followed by incrementally younger age groups. We explored four roll-out scenarios (R1-4) - the slowest scenario (R1) reached 30% coverage by December 2022 and the fastest (R4) 80% by December 2021. Five decision-making metrics were summarised over 2021-22: mortality, morbidity, and losses in comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy, comorbidity- and quality-adjusted life years, and human capital. Six vaccine profiles were tested - the highest performing vaccine has 95% efficacy against both infection and disease, and the lowest 50% against diseases and 0% against infection. Findings: Of the 20 decision-making metrics and roll-out scenario combinations, the same optimal strategy applied to all countries in only one combination; V60 was more or similarly desirable than V75 in 19 combinations. Of the 38 countries with fitted models, 11-37 countries had variable optimal strategies by decision-making metrics or roll-out scenarios. There are greater benefits in prioritising older adults when roll-out is slow and when vaccine profiles are less favourable. Interpretation: The optimal age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies were sensitive to country characteristics, decision-making metrics, and roll-out speeds. A prioritisation strategy involving more age-based stages (V75) does not necessarily lead to better health and economic outcomes than targeting broad age groups (V60). Countries expecting a slow vaccine roll-out may particularly benefit from prioritising older adults. Funding: World Health Organization, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Institute of Health Research (United Kingdom), the European Commission, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (United Kingdom), Wellcome Trust.

2.
Euro Surveill ; 26(47)2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1538334

ABSTRACT

Since December 2019, over 1.5 million SARS-CoV-2-related fatalities have been recorded in the World Health Organization European Region - 90.2% in people ≥ 60 years. We calculated lives saved in this age group by COVID-19 vaccination in 33 countries from December 2020 to November 2021, using weekly reported deaths and vaccination coverage. We estimated that vaccination averted 469,186 deaths (51% of 911,302 expected deaths; sensitivity range: 129,851-733,744; 23-62%). Impact by country ranged 6-93%, largest when implementation was early.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , World Health Organization
3.
Prev Med ; 144: 106399, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1139631

ABSTRACT

WHO/UNICEF estimates for HPV vaccination coverage from 2010 to 2019 are analyzed against the backdrop of the 90% coverage target for HPV vaccination by 2030 set in the recently approved global strategy for cervical cancer elimination as a public health problem. As of June 2020, 107 (55%) of the 194 WHO Member States have introduced HPV vaccination. The Americas and Europe are by far the WHO regions with the most introductions, 85% and 77% of their countries having already introduced respectively. A record number of introductions was observed in 2019, most of which in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC) where access has been limited. Programs had an average performance coverage of around 67% for the first dose and 53% for the final dose of HPV. LMICs performed on average better than high- income countries for the first dose, but worse for the last dose due to higher dropout. Only 5 (6%) countries achieved coverages with the final dose of more than 90%, 22 countries (21%) achieved coverages of 75% or higher while 35 (40%) had a final dose coverage of 50% or less. When expressed as world population coverage (i.e., weighted by population size), global coverage of the final HPV dose for 2019 is estimated at 15%. There is a long way to go to meet the 2030 elimination target of 90%. In the post-COVID era attention should be paid to maintain the pace of introductions, specially ensuring the most populous countries introduce, and further improving program performance globally.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Papillomavirus Infections , Papillomavirus Vaccines , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Europe , Female , Humans , Immunization Programs , Papillomavirus Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , United Nations , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/prevention & control , Vaccination , Vaccination Coverage , World Health Organization
4.
PLoS One ; 15(10): e0240205, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-841459

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Current SARS-CoV-2 containment measures rely on controlling viral transmission. Effective prioritization can be determined by understanding SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of the secondary attack rate (SAR) in household and healthcare settings. We also examined whether household transmission differed by symptom status of index case, adult and children, and relationship to index case. METHODS: We searched PubMed, medRxiv, and bioRxiv databases between January 1 and July 25, 2020. High-quality studies presenting original data for calculating point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were included. Random effects models were constructed to pool SAR in household and healthcare settings. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger's meta-regression test. RESULTS: 43 studies met the inclusion criteria for household SAR, 18 for healthcare SAR, and 17 for other settings. The pooled household SAR was 18.1% (95% CI: 15.7%, 20.6%), with significant heterogeneity across studies ranging from 3.9% to 54.9%. SAR of symptomatic index cases was higher than asymptomatic cases (RR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.46, 7.14). Adults showed higher susceptibility to infection than children (RR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.17). Spouses of index cases were more likely to be infected compared to other household contacts (RR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.79, 3.19). In healthcare settings, SAR was estimated at 0.7% (95% CI: 0.4%, 1.0%). DISCUSSION: While aggressive contact tracing strategies may be appropriate early in an outbreak, as it progresses, measures should transition to account for setting-specific transmission risk. Quarantine may need to cover entire communities while tracing shifts to identifying transmission hotspots and vulnerable populations. Where possible, confirmed cases should be isolated away from the household.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/physiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Adult , COVID-19 , Child , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Disease Susceptibility , Family , Health Personnel , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Quarantine , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...