An interrupted time series analysis of the lockdown policies in India: a national-level analysis of COVID-19 incidence.

India implemented a national mandatory lockdown policy (Lockdown 1.0) on 24 March 2020 in response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The policy was revised in three subsequent stages (Lockdown 2.0-4.0 between 15 April to 18 May 2020), and restrictions were lifted (Unlockdown 1.0) on 1 June 2020. This study evaluated the effect of lockdown policy on the COVID-19 incidence rate at the national level to inform policy response for this and future pandemics. We conducted an interrupted time series analysis with a segmented regression model using publicly available data on daily reported new COVID-19 cases between 2 March 2020 and 1 September 2020. National-level data from Google Community Mobility Reports during this timeframe were also used in model development and robustness checks. Results showed an 8% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 6-9%] reduction in the change in incidence rate per day after Lockdown 1.0 compared to prior to the Lockdown order, with an additional reduction of 3% (95% CI = 2-3%) after Lockdown 4.0, suggesting an 11% (95% CI = 9-12%) reduction in the change in COVID-19 incidence after Lockdown 4.0 compared to the period before Lockdown 1.0. Uptake of the lockdown policy is indicated by decreased mobility and attenuation of the increasing incidence of COVID-19. The increasing rate of incident case reports in India was attenuated after the lockdown policy was implemented compared to before, and this reduction was maintained after the restrictions were eased, suggesting that the policy helped to 'flatten the curve' and buy additional time for pandemic preparedness, response and recovery.

Cost Effectiveness of Meningococcal Serogroup B Vaccination in College-Aged Young Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B is the most common form of meningococcal infection in young adults in the U.S. Vaccines have recently become available, but it is not clear that the benefits outweigh the costs. The purpose of this study was to assess cost effectiveness and determine potentially favorable conditions for universal vaccination. METHODS: Costs and benefits of universal vaccination at college entry versus no universal vaccination with an outbreak response were estimated in 2018 in the context of a mid-sized U.S.-based 4-year college from both a health sector and a societal perspective. Probability, cost, and utility data were obtained from the published literature. Costs (2015 U.S.$) and benefits were discounted at 3%. One-way and multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed including variations in the specific vaccine used. Further testing of the model's parameters at extremes was used to identify favorable conditions for universal vaccination. RESULTS: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with universal vaccination was $13.9 million under the health sector perspective and $13.8 million under the societal perspective, each perspective was compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that universal vaccination was not the preferred strategy for <$15 million per quality-adjusted life year. Under an extremely favorable model, a universal vaccination strategy became cost effective for vaccine series costing <$65. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that universal vaccination at college entry is not cost effective. The rarity of N. meningitidis serogroup B contributes to the lack of cost effectiveness for universal vaccination.