RESUMO
BackgroundThe UK was the first country to start national COVID-19 vaccination programmes, initially administering doses 3-weeks apart. However, early evidence of high vaccine effectiveness after the first dose and the emergence of the Alpha variant prompted the UK to extend the interval between doses to 12-weeks. In this study, we quantify the impact of delaying the second vaccine dose on the epidemic in England. MethodsWe used a previously described model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and calibrated the model to English surveillance data including hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, seroprevalence data, and population-level PCR testing data using a Bayesian evidence synthesis framework. We modelled and compared the epidemic trajectory assuming that vaccine doses were administered 3-weeks apart against the real vaccine roll-out schedule. We estimated and compared the resulting number of daily infections, hospital admissions, and deaths. A range of scenarios spanning a range of vaccine effectiveness and waning assumptions were investigated. FindingsWe estimate that delaying the interval between the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses from 3- to 12-weeks prevented an average 64,000 COVID-19 hospital admissions and 9,400 deaths between 8th December 2020 and 13th September 2021. Similarly, we estimate that the 3-week strategy would have resulted in more infections and deaths compared to the 12-week strategy. Across all sensitivity analyses the 3-week strategy resulted in a greater number of hospital admissions. InterpretationEnglands delayed second dose vaccination strategy was informed by early real-world vaccine effectiveness data and a careful assessment of the trade-offs in the context of limited vaccine supplies in a growing epidemic. Our study shows that rapidly providing partial vaccine-induced protection to a larger proportion of the population was successful in reducing the burden of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths. There is benefit in carefully considering and adapting guidelines in light of new emerging evidence and the population in question. FundingNational Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Jameel Institute, Wellcome Trust, and UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, National Health and Medical Research Council. Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed up to 10th June 2022, with no language restrictions using the following search terms: (COVID-19) AND (vaccin*) AND (dose OR dosing) AND (delay OR interval) AND (quant* OR assess* OR impact). We found 14 studies that explored the impact of different vaccine dosing intervals. However, the majority were prospective assessments of optimal vaccination strategies, exploring different trade-offs between vaccine mode of action, vaccine effectiveness, coverage, and availability. Only two studies retrospectively assessed the impact of different vaccination intervals. One assessed the optimal timing during the epidemic to switch to an extended dosing interval, and the other assessed the risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalisations between the two dosing groups. Added value of this studyOur data synthesis approach combines real-world evidence from multiple data sources to retrospectively quantify the impact of extending the COVID-19 vaccine dosing interval from the manufacturer recommended 3-weeks to 12-weeks in England. Implications of all the available evidenceOur study demonstrates that rapidly providing partial vaccine-induced protection to a larger proportion of the population was successful in reducing the COVID-19 hospitalisations and mortality. This was enabled by rapid and careful monitoring of vaccine effectiveness as nationwide vaccine programmes were initiated, and adaptation of guidelines in light of emerging evidence.
RESUMO
BackgroundEnglands COVID-19 "roadmap out of lockdown" set out the timeline and conditions for the stepwise lifting of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) as vaccination roll-out continued. Here we assess the roadmap, the impact of the Delta variant, and potential future epidemic trajectories. MethodsWe extended a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to incorporate vaccination and multi-strain dynamics to explicitly capture the emergence of the Delta variant. We calibrated the model to English surveillance data using a Bayesian evidence synthesis framework, then modelled the potential trajectory of the epidemic for a range of different schedules for relaxing NPIs. FindingsThe roadmap was successful in offsetting the increased transmission resulting from lifting NPIs with increasing population immunity through vaccination. However due to the emergence of Delta, with an estimated transmission advantage of 73% (95%CrI: 68-79) over Alpha, fully lifting NPIs on 21 June 2021 as originally planned may have led to 3,400 (95%CrI: 1,300-4,400) peak daily hospital admissions under our central parameter scenario. Delaying until 19 July reduced peak hospitalisations by three-fold to 1,400 (95%CrI: 700-1,500) per day. There was substantial uncertainty in the epidemic trajectory, with particular sensitivity to estimates of vaccine effectiveness and the intrinsic transmissibility of Delta. InterpretationOur findings show that the risk of a large wave of COVID hospitalisations resulting from lifting NPIs can be substantially mitigated if the timing of NPI relaxation is carefully balanced against vaccination coverage. However, with Delta, it may not be possible to fully lift NPIs without a third wave of hospitalisations and deaths, even if vaccination coverage is high. Variants of concern, their transmissibility, vaccine uptake, and vaccine effectiveness must be carefully monitored as countries relax pandemic control measures. FundingNational Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed up to 23 July 2021 with no language restrictions using the search terms: (COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV or "novel coronavirus") AND (vaccine or vaccination) AND ("non pharmaceutical interventions" OR "non-pharmaceutical interventions) AND (model*). We found nine studies that analysed the relaxation of controls with vaccination roll-out. However, none explicitly analysed real-world evidence balancing lifting of interventions, vaccination, and emergence of the Delta variant. Added value of this studyOur data synthesis approach combines real-world evidence from multiple data sources to retrospectively evaluate how relaxation of COVID-19 measures have been balanced with vaccination roll-out. We explicitly capture the emergence of the Delta variant, its transmissibility over Alpha, and quantify its impact on the roadmap. We show the benefits of maintaining NPIs whilst vaccine coverage continues to increase and capture key uncertainties in the epidemic trajectory after NPIs are lifted. Implications of all the available evidenceOur study shows that lifting interventions must be balanced carefully and cautiously with vaccine roll-out. In the presence of a new, highly transmissible variant, vaccination alone may not be enough to control COVID-19. Careful monitoring of vaccine uptake, effectiveness, variants, and changes in contact patterns as restrictions are lifted will be critical in any exit strategy.
RESUMO
The worldwide endeavour to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has been extraordinary, and vaccination is now underway in many countries. However, the doses available in 2021 are likely to be limited. We extended a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission across different country settings to evaluate the public health impact of potential vaccines using WHO-developed target product profiles. We identified optimal vaccine allocation strategies within- and between-countries to maximise averted deaths under constraints on dose supply. We found that the health impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination depends on the cumulative population-level infection incidence when vaccination begins, the duration of natural immunity, the trajectory of the epidemic prior to vaccination, and the level of healthcare available to effectively treat those with disease. Within a country we find that for a limited supply (doses for <20% of the population) the optimal strategy is to target the elderly. However, with a larger supply, if vaccination can occur while other interventions are maintained, the optimal strategy switches to targeting key transmitters to indirectly protect the vulnerable. As supply increases, vaccines that reduce or block infection have a greater impact than those that prevent disease alone due to the indirect protection provided to high-risk groups. Given a 2 billion global dose supply in 2021, we find that a strategy in which doses are allocated to countries proportional to population size is close to optimal in averting deaths and aligns with the ethical principles agreed in pandemic preparedness planning. HighlightsO_LIThe global dose supply of COVID-19 vaccines will be constrained in 2021 C_LIO_LIWithin a country, prioritising doses to protect those at highest mortality risk is efficient C_LIO_LIFor a 2 billion dose supply in 2021, allocating to countries according to population size is efficient and equitable C_LI
RESUMO
We fitted a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in care homes and the community to regional surveillance data for England. Among control measures implemented, only national lockdown brought the reproduction number below 1 consistently; introduced one week earlier it could have reduced first wave deaths from 36,700 to 15,700 (95%CrI: 8,900-26,800). Improved clinical care reduced the infection fatality ratio from 1.25% (95%CrI: 1.18%-1.33%) to 0.77% (95%CrI: 0.71%-0.84%). The infection fatality ratio was higher in the elderly residing in care homes (35.9%, 95%CrI: 29.1%-43.4%) than those residing in the community (10.4%, 95%CrI: 9.1%-11.5%). England is still far from herd immunity, with regional cumulative infection incidence to 1st December 2020 between 4.8% (95%CrI: 4.4%-5.1%) and 15.4% (95%CrI: 14.9%-15.9%) of the population. One-sentence summaryWe fit a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to surveillance data from England, to estimate transmissibility, severity, and the impact of interventions
RESUMO
As of 1st June 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 104,232 confirmed or probable COVID-19-related deaths in the US. This was more than twice the number of deaths reported in the next most severely impacted country. We jointly modelled the US epidemic at the state-level, using publicly available death data within a Bayesian hierarchical semi-mechanistic framework. For each state, we estimate the number of individuals that have been infected, the number of individuals that are currently infectious and the time-varying reproduction number (the average number of secondary infections caused by an infected person). We used changes in mobility to capture the impact that non-pharmaceutical interventions and other behaviour changes have on the rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Nationally, we estimated 3.7% [3.4%-4.0%] of the population had been infected by 1st June 2020, with wide variation between states, and approximately 0.01% of the population was infectious. We also demonstrated that good model forecasts of deaths for the next 3 weeks with low error and good coverage of our credible intervals.
