Search

Background Prisons and jails are high-risk settings for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccines may substantially reduce these risks, but evidence is needed on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness for incarcerated people, who are confined in large, risky congregate settings. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study to estimate effectiveness of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), against confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections among incarcerated people in California prisons from 22 December 2020 through 1 March 2021. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided daily data for all prison residents including demographic, clinical, and carceral characteristics, as well as COVID-19 testing, vaccination, and outcomes. We estimated vaccine effectiveness using multivariable Cox models with time-varying covariates, adjusted for resident characteristics and infection rates across prisons. Results Among 60 707 cohort members, 49% received at least 1 BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 dose during the study period. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64%–82%) from day 14 after first dose until receipt of second dose and 97% (95% CI, 88%–99%) from day 14 after second dose. Effectiveness was similar among the subset of residents who were medically vulnerable: 74% (95% CI, 62%–82%) and 92% (95% CI, 74%–98%) from 14 days after first and second doses, respectively. Conclusions Consistent with results from randomized trials and observational studies in other populations, mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among incarcerated people. Prioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination, redoubling efforts to boost vaccination, and continuing other ongoing mitigation practices are essential in preventing COVID-19 in this disproportionately affected population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Correctional institutions nationwide are seeking to mitigate COVID-19-related risks.Objective: To quantify changes to California's prison population since the pandemic began and identify risk factors for COVID-19 infection.Design: For California state prisons (March 1-October 10, 2020), we described residents' demographic characteristics, health status, COVID-19 risk scores, room occupancy, and labor participation. We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the association between rates of COVID-19 infection and room occupancy and out-of-room labor, respectively.Participants: Residents of California state prisons.Main Measures: Changes in the incarcerated population's size, composition, housing, and activities. For the risk factor analysis, the exposure variables were room type (cells vs. dormitories) and labor participation (any room occupant participating in the prior 2 weeks) and the outcome variable was incident COVID-19 case rates.Key Results: The incarcerated population decreased 19.1% (119,401 to 96,623) during the study period. On October 10, 2020, 11.5% of residents were aged ≥60, 18.3% had high COVID-19 risk scores, 31.0% participated in out-of-room labor, and 14.8% lived in rooms with ≥10 occupants. Nearly 40% of residents with high COVID-19 risk scores lived in dormitories. In 9 prisons with major outbreaks (6,928 rooms; 21,750 residents), dormitory residents had higher infection rates than cell residents (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 2.51 95% CI, 2.25-2.80) and residents of rooms with labor participation had higher rates than residents of other rooms (AHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.39-1.74).Conclusion: Despite reductions in room occupancy and mixing, California prisons still house many medically vulnerable residents in risky settings. Reducing risks further requires a combination of strategies, including rehousing, decarceration, and vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Routine viral testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 infection might facilitate safe airline travel during the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate global spread of the virus. However, the effectiveness of these test-and-travel strategies to reduce passenger risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-level transmission remains unknown.Methods: In this simulation study, we developed a microsimulation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a cohort of 100 000 US domestic airline travellers using publicly available data on COVID-19 clinical cases and published natural history parameters to assign individuals one of five health states of susceptible to infection, latent period, early infection, late infection, or recovered. We estimated a per-day risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 corresponding to a daily incidence of 150 infections per 100 000 people. We assessed five testing strategies: (1) anterior nasal PCR test within 3 days of departure, (2) PCR within 3 days of departure and 5 days after arrival, (3) rapid antigen test on the day of travel (assuming 90% of the sensitivity of PCR during active infection), (4) rapid antigen test on the day of travel and PCR test 5 days after arrival, and (5) PCR test 5 days after arrival. Strategies 2 and 4 included a 5-day quarantine after arrival. The travel period was defined as 3 days before travel to 2 weeks after travel. Under each scenario, individuals who tested positive before travel were not permitted to travel. The primary study outcome was cumulative number of infectious days in the cohort over the travel period without isolation or quarantine (population-level transmission risk), and the key secondary outcome was the number of infectious people detected on the day of travel (passenger risk of infection).Findings: We estimated that in a cohort of 100 000 airline travellers, in a scenario with no testing or screening, there would be 8357 (95% uncertainty interval 6144-12831) infectious days with 649 (505-950) actively infectious passengers on the day of travel. The pre-travel PCR test reduced the number of infectious days from 8357 to 5401 (3917-8677), a reduction of 36% (29-41) compared with the base case, and identified 569 (88% [76-92]) of 649 actively infectious travellers on the day of flight; the addition of post-travel quarantine and PCR reduced the number of infectious days to 2520 days (1849-4158), a reduction of 70% (64-75) compared with the base case. The rapid antigen test on the day of travel reduced the number of infectious days to 5674 (4126-9081), a reduction of 32% (26-38) compared with the base case, and identified 560 (86% [83-89]) actively infectious travellers; the addition of post-travel quarantine and PCR reduced the number of infectious days to 3124 (2356-495), a reduction of 63% (58-66) compared with the base case. The post-travel PCR alone reduced the number of infectious days to 4851 (3714-7679), a reduction of 42% (35-49) compared with the base case.Interpretation: Routine asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 before travel can be an effective strategy to reduce passenger risk of infection during travel, although abbreviated quarantine with post-travel testing is probably needed to reduce population-level transmission due to importation of infection when travelling from a high to low incidence setting.Funding: University of California, San Francisco. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Routine asymptomatic testing strategies for COVID-19 have been proposed to prevent outbreaks in high-risk healthcare environments. We used simulation modeling to evaluate the optimal frequency of viral testing. We found that routine testing substantially reduces risk of outbreaks, but may need to be as frequent as twice weekly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]