Comparison of allocation strategies of convalescent plasma to reduce excess infections and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in a US-like population.

BACKGROUND: While the use of convalescent plasma (CP) in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been inconsistent, CP has the potential to reduce excess morbidity and mortality in future pandemics. Given constraints on CP supply, decisions surrounding the allocation of CP must be made. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a discrete-time stochastic compartmental model, we simulated implementation of four potential allocation strategies: administering CP to individuals in early hospitalization with COVID-19; administering CP to individuals in outpatient settings; administering CP to hospitalized individuals and administering any remaining CP to outpatient individuals and administering CP in both settings while prioritizing outpatient individuals. We examined the final size of SARS-CoV-2 infections, peak and cumulative hospitalizations, and cumulative deaths under each of the allocation scenarios over a 180-day period. We compared the cost per weighted health benefit under each strategy. RESULTS: Prioritizing administration to patients in early hospitalization, with remaining plasma administered in outpatient settings, resulted in the highest reduction in mortality, averting on average 15% more COVID-19 deaths than administering to hospitalized individuals alone (95% CI [11%-18%]). Prioritizing administration to outpatients, with remaining plasma administered to hospitalized individuals, had the highest percentage of hospitalizations averted (22% [21%-23%] higher than administering to hospitalized individuals alone). DISCUSSION: Convalescent plasma allocation strategy should be determined by the relative priority of averting deaths, infections, or hospitalizations. Under conditions considered, mixed allocation strategies (allocating CP to both outpatient and hospitalized individuals) resulted in a larger percentage of infections and deaths averted than administering CP in a single setting.

An evaluation of prospective COVID-19 modelling studies in the USA: from data to science translation.

Infectious disease modelling can serve as a powerful tool for situational awareness and decision support for policy makers. However, COVID-19 modelling efforts faced many challenges, from poor data quality to changing policy and human behaviour. To extract practical insight from the large body of COVID-19 modelling literature available, we provide a narrative review with a systematic approach that quantitatively assessed prospective, data-driven modelling studies of COVID-19 in the USA. We analysed 136 papers, and focused on the aspects of models that are essential for decision makers. We have documented the forecasting window, methodology, prediction target, datasets used, and geographical resolution for each study. We also found that a large fraction of papers did not evaluate performance (25%), express uncertainty (50%), or state limitations (36%). To remedy some of these identified gaps, we recommend the adoption of the EPIFORGE 2020 model reporting guidelines and creating an information-sharing system that is suitable for fast-paced infectious disease outbreak science.

Projected resurgence of COVID-19 in the United States in July-December 2021 resulting from the increased transmissibility of the Delta variant and faltering vaccination.

In Spring 2021, the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant began to cause increases in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in parts of the United States. At the time, with slowed vaccination uptake, this novel variant was expected to increase the risk of pandemic resurgence in the US in summer and fall 2021. As part of the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, an ensemble of nine mechanistic models produced 6-month scenario projections for July-December 2021 for the United States. These projections estimated substantial resurgences of COVID-19 across the US resulting from the more transmissible Delta variant, projected to occur across most of the US, coinciding with school and business reopening. The scenarios revealed that reaching higher vaccine coverage in July-December 2021 reduced the size and duration of the projected resurgence substantially, with the expected impacts was largely concentrated in a subset of states with lower vaccination coverage. Despite accurate projection of COVID-19 surges occurring and timing, the magnitude was substantially underestimated 2021 by the models compared with the of the reported cases, hospitalizations, and deaths occurring during July-December, highlighting the continued challenges to predict the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccination uptake remains critical to limiting transmission and disease, particularly in states with lower vaccination coverage. Higher vaccination goals at the onset of the surge of the new variant were estimated to avert over 1.5 million cases and 21,000 deaths, although may have had even greater impacts, considering the underestimated resurgence magnitude from the model.

A Systematic Review of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection and Disease.

Billions of doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been administered globally, dramatically reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) incidence and severity in some settings. Many studies suggest vaccines provide a high degree of protection against infection and disease, but precise estimates vary and studies differ in design, outcomes measured, dosing regime, location, and circulating virus strains. In this study, we conduct a systematic review of COVID-19 vaccines through February 2022. We included efficacy data from Phase 3 clinical trials for 15 vaccines undergoing World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing evaluation and real-world effectiveness for 8 vaccines with observational studies meeting inclusion criteria. Vaccine metrics collected include protection against asymptomatic infection, any infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe outcomes including hospitalization and death, for partial or complete vaccination, and against variants of concern Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron. We additionally review the epidemiological principles behind the design and interpretation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies, including important sources of heterogeneity.

A systematic review of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease

Billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered globally, dramatically reducing SARS-CoV-2 incidence and severity in some settings. Many studies suggest vaccines provide a high degree of protection against infection and disease, but precise estimates vary and studies differ in design, outcomes measured, dosing regime, location, and circulating virus strains. Here we conduct a systematic review of COVID-19 vaccines through February 2022. We included efficacy data from Phase 3 clinical trials for 15 vaccines undergoing WHO Emergency Use Listing evaluation and real-world effectiveness for 8 vaccines with observational studies meeting inclusion criteria. Vaccine metrics collected include protection against asymptomatic infection, any infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe outcomes including hospitalization and death, for partial or complete vaccination, and against variants of concern Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron. We additionally review the epidemiological principles behind the design and interpretation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies, including important sources of heterogeneity.

Lives saved with vaccination for 10 pathogens across 112 countries in a pre-COVID-19 world.

Background: Vaccination is one of the most effective public health interventions. We investigate the impact of vaccination activities for Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, rotavirus, rubella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and yellow fever over the years 2000-2030 across 112 countries. Methods: Twenty-one mathematical models estimated disease burden using standardised demographic and immunisation data. Impact was attributed to the year of vaccination through vaccine-activity-stratified impact ratios. Results: We estimate 97 (95%CrI[80, 120]) million deaths would be averted due to vaccination activities over 2000-2030, with 50 (95%CrI[41, 62]) million deaths averted by activities between 2000 and 2019. For children under-5 born between 2000 and 2030, we estimate 52 (95%CrI[41, 69]) million more deaths would occur over their lifetimes without vaccination against these diseases. Conclusions: This study represents the largest assessment of vaccine impact before COVID-19-related disruptions and provides motivation for sustaining and improving global vaccination coverage in the future. Funding: VIMC is jointly funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) (BMGF grant number: OPP1157270 / INV-009125). Funding from Gavi is channelled via VIMC to the Consortium's modelling groups (VIMC-funded institutions represented in this paper: Imperial College London, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Public Health England, Johns Hopkins University, The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, Kaiser Permanente Washington, University of Cambridge, University of Notre Dame, Harvard University, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Emory University, National University of Singapore). Funding from BMGF was used for salaries of the Consortium secretariat (authors represented here: TBH, MJ, XL, SE-L, JT, KW, NMF, KAMG); and channelled via VIMC for travel and subsistence costs of all Consortium members (all authors). We also acknowledge funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Department for International Development, which supported aspects of VIMC's work (MRC grant number: MR/R015600/1).JHH acknowledges funding from National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship; Richard and Peggy Notebaert Premier Fellowship from the University of Notre Dame. BAL acknowledges funding from NIH/NIGMS (grant number R01 GM124280) and NIH/NIAID (grant number R01 AI112970). The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) receives funding support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.This paper was compiled by all coauthors, including two coauthors from Gavi. Other funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Zambia: a glimpse at the possible challenges ahead for COVID-19 vaccination rollout in sub-Saharan Africa.

With unprecedented speed, multiple vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are available 1 year after the COVID-19 pandemic was first identified. As we push to achieve global control through these new vaccines, old challenges present themselves, including cold-chain storage, the logistics of mass vaccination, and vaccine hesitancy. Understanding how much hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines might occur and what factors may be driving these concerns can improve the ability of public health workers and communicators to maximize vaccine uptake. We nested a survey within a measles-rubella mass vaccination campaign in Zambia in November 2020 and asked about sentiments and beliefs toward COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Among parents bringing their children to receive a measles-rubella vaccine, we found high acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination of their children, but substantial uncertainty and hesitancy about receiving the vaccine themselves. COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy was correlated with beliefs around COVID-19 severity and risk, as well as vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Modeling of Future COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Rates and Nonpharmaceutical Intervention Scenarios - United States, April-September 2021.

After a period of rapidly declining U.S. COVID-19 incidence during January-March 2021, increases occurred in several jurisdictions (1,2) despite the rapid rollout of a large-scale vaccination program. This increase coincided with the spread of more transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, including B.1.1.7 (1,3) and relaxation of COVID-19 prevention strategies such as those for businesses, large-scale gatherings, and educational activities. To provide long-term projections of potential trends in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub teams used a multiple-model approach comprising six models to assess the potential course of COVID-19 in the United States across four scenarios with different vaccination coverage rates and effectiveness estimates and strength and implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) (public health policies, such as physical distancing and masking) over a 6-month period (April-September 2021) using data available through March 27, 2021 (4). Among the four scenarios, an accelerated decline in NPI adherence (which encapsulates NPI mandates and population behavior) was shown to undermine vaccination-related gains over the subsequent 2-3 months and, in combination with increased transmissibility of new variants, could lead to surges in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. A sharp decline in cases was projected by July 2021, with a faster decline in the high-vaccination scenarios. High vaccination rates and compliance with public health prevention measures are essential to control the COVID-19 pandemic and to prevent surges in hospitalizations and deaths in the coming months.

A scenario modeling pipeline for COVID-19 emergency planning.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused strain on health systems worldwide due to its high mortality rate and the large portion of cases requiring critical care and mechanical ventilation. During these uncertain times, public health decision makers, from city health departments to federal agencies, sought the use of epidemiological models for decision support in allocating resources, developing non-pharmaceutical interventions, and characterizing the dynamics of COVID-19 in their jurisdictions. In response, we developed a flexible scenario modeling pipeline that could quickly tailor models for decision makers seeking to compare projections of epidemic trajectories and healthcare impacts from multiple intervention scenarios in different locations. Here, we present the components and configurable features of the COVID Scenario Pipeline, with a vignette detailing its current use. We also present model limitations and active areas of development to meet ever-changing decision maker needs.

A Failure to Communicate? How Public Messaging Has Strained the COVID-19 Response in the United States.

A pandemic, especially when caused by a novel virus, induces tremendous uncertainty, fear, and anxiety. To mitigate panic and encourage appropriate behavioral action, communication is critical. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) guidance is designed to assist public health authorities, government officials, and other stakeholders in using risk communication during an emergency. For each of the 6 core communication principles outlined in the CERC guidance, we describe the use or nonuse of these principles at critical points during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by US public health and government officials. With the knowledge that the pandemic will continue to rage for some time and that new communication challenges will arise, including issues related to vaccination and treatment options, many lessons are to be learned and shared. To reduce fear and uncertainty among those living in the United States, COVID-19 communication should be rapid and accurate, while building credibility and trust and showcasing empathy-all with a unified voice.

Politicizing public health: the powder keg of rushing COVID-19 vaccines.

Vaccine hesitancy is on the rise, as more individuals are delaying or refusing vaccines. This rise in hesitancy has been primarily driven by vaccine safety concerns, even though the vaccine development process is regulated by a robust and rigorous scientific system. Recent data suggest that many individuals would be unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine, once one is available. The Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed aims to deliver a vaccine in the near future, even though no American or European COVID-19 vaccine has yet completed Phase 3 trials. The administration has used the emergency use authorization mechanism to fast track therapeutic products through the Food and Drug Administration and has not ruled out using the mechanism to fast track a COVID-19 vaccine. Perceived political pressure to push a COVID-19 vaccine will have a multitude of negative consequences. Not only will it lead to sub-optimal levels of vaccine acceptance toward a COVID-19 vaccine, it will reverse progress made in controlling vaccine preventable disease for years to come.

The potential impact of COVID-19 in refugee camps in Bangladesh and beyond: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 could have even more dire consequences in refugees camps than in general populations. Bangladesh has confirmed COVID-19 cases and hosts almost 1 million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, with 600,000 concentrated in the Kutupalong-Balukhali Expansion Site (mean age, 21 years; standard deviation [SD], 18 years; 52% female). Projections of the potential COVID-19 burden, epidemic speed, and healthcare needs in such settings are critical for preparedness planning. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To explore the potential impact of the introduction of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the Kutupalong-Balukhali Expansion Site, we used a stochastic Susceptible Exposed Infectious Recovered (SEIR) transmission model with parameters derived from emerging literature and age as the primary determinant of infection severity. We considered three scenarios with different assumptions about the transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2. From the simulated infections, we estimated hospitalizations, deaths, and healthcare needs expected, age-adjusted for the Kutupalong-Balukhali Expansion Site age distribution. Our findings suggest that a large-scale outbreak is likely after a single introduction of the virus into the camp, with 61%-92% of simulations leading to at least 1,000 people infected across scenarios. On average, in the first 30 days of the outbreak, we expect 18 (95% prediction interval [PI], 2-65), 54 (95% PI, 3-223), and 370 (95% PI, 4-1,850) people infected in the low, moderate, and high transmission scenarios, respectively. These reach 421,500 (95% PI, 376,300-463,500), 546,800 (95% PI, 499,300-567,000), and 589,800 (95% PI, 578,800-595,600) people infected in 12 months, respectively. Hospitalization needs exceeded the existing hospitalization capacity of 340 beds after 55-136 days, between the low and high transmission scenarios. We estimate 2,040 (95% PI, 1,660-2,500), 2,650 (95% PI, 2,030-3,380), and 2,880 (95% PI, 2,090-3,830) deaths in the low, moderate, and high transmission scenarios, respectively. Due to limited data at the time of analyses, we assumed that age was the primary determinant of infection severity and hospitalization. We expect that comorbidities, limited hospitalization, and intensive care capacity may increase this risk; thus, we may be underestimating the potential burden. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a COVID-19 epidemic in a refugee settlement may have profound consequences, requiring large increases in healthcare capacity and infrastructure that may exceed what is currently feasible in these settings. Detailed and realistic planning for the worst case in Kutupalong-Balukhali and all refugee camps worldwide must begin now. Plans should consider novel and radical strategies to reduce infectious contacts and fill health worker gaps while recognizing that refugees may not have access to national health systems.

Epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in 391 cases and 1286 of their close contacts in Shenzhen, China: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China, prompted heightened surveillance in Shenzhen, China. The resulting data provide a rare opportunity to measure key metrics of disease course, transmission, and the impact of control measures. METHODS: From Jan 14 to Feb 12, 2020, the Shenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention identified 391 SARS-CoV-2 cases and 1286 close contacts. We compared cases identified through symptomatic surveillance and contact tracing, and estimated the time from symptom onset to confirmation, isolation, and admission to hospital. We estimated metrics of disease transmission and analysed factors influencing transmission risk. FINDINGS: Cases were older than the general population (mean age 45 years) and balanced between males (n=187) and females (n=204). 356 (91%) of 391 cases had mild or moderate clinical severity at initial assessment. As of Feb 22, 2020, three cases had died and 225 had recovered (median time to recovery 21 days; 95% CI 20-22). Cases were isolated on average 4·6 days (95% CI 4·1-5·0) after developing symptoms; contact tracing reduced this by 1·9 days (95% CI 1·1-2·7). Household contacts and those travelling with a case were at higher risk of infection (odds ratio 6·27 [95% CI 1·49-26·33] for household contacts and 7·06 [1·43-34·91] for those travelling with a case) than other close contacts. The household secondary attack rate was 11·2% (95% CI 9·1-13·8), and children were as likely to be infected as adults (infection rate 7·4% in children <10 years vs population average of 6·6%). The observed reproductive number (R) was 0·4 (95% CI 0·3-0·5), with a mean serial interval of 6·3 days (95% CI 5·2-7·6). INTERPRETATION: Our data on cases as well as their infected and uninfected close contacts provide key insights into the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. This analysis shows that isolation and contact tracing reduce the time during which cases are infectious in the community, thereby reducing the R. The overall impact of isolation and contact tracing, however, is uncertain and highly dependent on the number of asymptomatic cases. Moreover, children are at a similar risk of infection to the general population, although less likely to have severe symptoms; hence they should be considered in analyses of transmission and control. FUNDING: Emergency Response Program of Harbin Institute of Technology, Emergency Response Program of Peng Cheng Laboratory, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.