Search

Background: Two prefusion F protein-based vaccines, Arexvy and Abrysvo, have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration for protecting older adults against Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)-associated lower respiratory tract illness. We evaluated the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of these vaccines., Methods: We developed a discrete-event simulation model, parameterized with the burden of RSV disease including outpatient care, hospitalization, and death for adults aged 60 years or older in the US. Taking into account the costs associated with these RSV-related outcomes, we calculated the net monetary benefit using quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained as a measure of effectiveness, and determined the range of price-per-dose (PPD) for Arexvy and Abrysvo vaccination programs to be cost-effective from a societal perspective., Results: Using a willingness-to-pay of $95,000 per QALY gained, we found that vaccination programs could be cost-effective for a PPD under $120 with Arexvy and $111 with Abrysvo over the first RSV season. Achieving an influenza-like vaccination coverage of 66% for the population of older adults in the US, the budget impact of these programs at the maximum PPD ranged from $5.74 to $6.10 billion. If the benefits of vaccination extend to a second RSV season as reported in clinical trials, we estimated a maximum PPD of $250 for Arexvy and $233 for Abrysvo, with two-year budget impacts of $11.59 and $10.89 billion, respectively., Conclusions: Vaccination of older adults would provide substantial direct health benefits by reducing outcomes associated with RSV-related illness in this population.

Background: Numerous countries imposed strict travel restrictions, contributing to the large socioeconomic burden during the COVID-19 pandemic. The long quarantines that apply to contacts of cases may be excessive for travel policy., Methods: We developed an approach to evaluate imminent countrywide COVID-19 infections after 0-14-day quarantine and testing. We identified the minimum travel quarantine duration such that the infection rate within the destination country did not increase compared to a travel ban, defining this minimum quarantine as "sufficient.", Findings: We present a generalised analytical framework and a specific case study of the epidemic situation on November 21, 2021, for application to 26 European countries. For most origin-destination country pairs, a three-day or shorter quarantine with RT-PCR or antigen testing on exit suffices. Adaptation to the European Union traffic-light risk stratification provided a simplified policy tool. Our analytical approach provides guidance for travel policy during all phases of pandemic diseases., Interpretation: For nearly half of origin-destination country pairs analysed, travel can be permitted in the absence of quarantine and testing. For the majority of pairs requiring controls, a short quarantine with testing could be as effective as a complete travel ban. The estimated travel quarantine durations are substantially shorter than those specified for traced contacts., Funding: EasyJet (JPT and APG), the Elihu endowment (JPT), the Burnett and Stender families' endowment (APG), the Notsew Orm Sands Foundation (JPT and APG), the National Institutes of Health (MCF), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (SMM) and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada EIDM-MfPH (SMM)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JPT and APG declare the following competing interests: received funding from EasyJet to conduct research on travel quarantine durations. CRW, AP, WSC, MCF, BHS, and SMM declare no competing interest. The funders had no role in designing the study, conducting the analyses, deriving the findings, or the decision to publish the outcomes.

Recent evidence suggests that some new SARS-CoV-2 variants with spike mutations, such as P.1 (Gamma) and B.1.617.2 (Delta), exhibit partial immune evasion to antibodies generated by natural infection or vaccination. By considering the Gamma and Delta variants in a multi-variant transmission dynamic model, we evaluated the dominance of these variants in the United States (US) despite mounting vaccination coverage and other circulating variants. Our results suggest that while the dominance of the Gamma variant is improbable, the Delta variant would become the most prevalent variant in the US, driving a surge in infections and hospitalizations. Our study highlights the urgency for accelerated vaccination and continued adherence to non-pharmaceutical measures until viral circulation is driven low., Competing Interests: Competing Interest Statement: The authors declare no competing interests.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused severe outbreaks in Canadian long-term care facilities (LTCFs). In Canada, over 80% of COVID-19 deaths during the first pandemic wave occurred in LTCFs. We sought to evaluate the effect of mitigation measures in LTCFs including frequent testing of staff, and vaccination of staff and residents. We developed an agent-based transmission model and parameterized it with disease-specific estimates, temporal sensitivity of nasopharyngeal and saliva testing, results of vaccine efficacy trials, and data from initial COVID-19 outbreaks in LTCFs in Ontario, Canada. Characteristics of staff and residents, including contact patterns, were integrated into the model with age-dependent risk of hospitalization and death. Estimates of infection and outcomes were obtained and 95% credible intervals were generated using a bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap method. Weekly routine testing of staff with 2-day turnaround time reduced infections among residents by at least 25.9% (95% CrI: 23.3% - 28.3%), compared to baseline measures of mask-wearing, symptom screening, and staff cohorting alone. A similar reduction of hospitalizations and deaths was achieved in residents. Vaccination averted 2-4 times more infections in both staff and residents as compared to routine testing, and markedly reduced hospitalizations and deaths among residents by 95.9% (95% CrI: 95.4% - 96.3%) and 95.8% (95% CrI: 95.5% - 96.1%), respectively, over 200 days from the start of vaccination. Vaccination could have a substantial impact on mitigating disease burden among residents, but may not eliminate the need for other measures before population-level control of COVID-19 is achieved.

Two of the COVID-19 vaccines currently approved in the United States require two doses, administered three to four weeks apart. Constraints in vaccine supply and distribution capacity, together with a deadly wave of COVID-19 from November 2020 to January 2021 and the emergence of highly contagious SARS-CoV-2 variants, sparked a policy debate on whether to vaccinate more individuals with the first dose of available vaccines and delay the second dose, or to continue with the recommended two-dose series as tested in clinical trials. We developed an agent-based model of COVID-19 transmission to compare the impact of these two vaccination strategies, while varying the temporal waning of vaccine efficacy following the first dose and the level of pre-existing immunity in the population. Our results show that for Moderna vaccines, a delay of at least 9 weeks could maximize vaccination program effectiveness and avert at least an additional 17.3 (95% CrI: 7.8 - 29.7) infections, 0.71 (95% CrI: 0.52 - 0.97) hospitalizations, and 0.34 (95% CrI: 0.25 - 0.44) deaths per 10,000 population compared to the recommended 4-week interval between the two doses. Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines also averted an additional 0.61 (95% CrI: 0.37 - 0.89) hospitalizations and 0.31 (95% CrI: 0.23 - 0.45) deaths per 10,000 population in a 9-week delayed second dose strategy compared to the 3-week recommended schedule between doses. However, there was no clear advantage of delaying the second dose with Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in reducing infections, unless the efficacy of the first dose did not wane over time. Our findings underscore the importance of quantifying the characteristics and durability of vaccine-induced protection after the first dose in order to determine the optimal time interval between the two doses., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Importance: A significant proportion of COVID-19 transmission occurs silently during the pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic stages of infection. Children, while being important drivers of silent transmission, are not included in the current COVID-19 vaccination campaigns., Objective: To investigate the benefits of identifying silent infections among children as a proxy for their vaccination., Design: This study used an age-structured disease transmission model, parameterized with census data and estimates from published literature, to simulate the synergistic effect of interventions in reducing attack rates over the course of one year., Setting: A synthetic population representative of the United States (US) demographics., Participants: Six age groups of 0-4, 5-10, 11-18, 19-49, 50-64, 65+ years based on US census data., Interventions: In addition to the isolation of symptomatic cases within 24 hours of symptom onset, vaccination of adults was implemented to reach a 40%-60% coverage over the course of one year with an efficacy of 95% against symptomatic and severe COVID-19., Main Outcomes and Measures: The combinations of proportion and speed for detecting silent infections among children which would suppress future attack rates below 5%., Results: In the base-case scenarios with an effective reproduction number R e = 1.2, a targeted approach that identifies 11% and 14% of silent infections among children within 2 or 3 days post-infection, respectively, would bring attack rates under 5% with 40% vaccination coverage of adults. If silent infections among children remained undetected, achieving the same attack rates would require an unrealistically high vaccination coverage (at least 81%) of this age group, in addition to 40% vaccination coverage of adults. The effect of identifying silent infections was robust in sensitivity analyses with respect to vaccine efficacy against infection and reduced susceptibility of children to infection., Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulation modeling study of a synthetic US population, in the absence of vaccine availability for children, a targeted approach to rapidly identify silent COVID-19 infections in this age group was estimated to significantly mitigate disease burden. Without measures to interrupt transmission chains from silent infections, vaccination of adults is unlikely to contain the outbreaks in the near term., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: Global vaccine development efforts have been accelerated in response to the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the impact of a 2-dose COVID-19 vaccination campaign on reducing incidence, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States (US)., Methods: We developed an agent-based model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and parameterized it with US demographics and age-specific COVID-19 outcomes. Healthcare workers and high-risk individuals were prioritized for vaccination, while children under 18 years of age were not vaccinated. We considered a vaccine efficacy of 95% against disease following 2 doses administered 21 days apart achieving 40% vaccine coverage of the overall population within 284 days. We varied vaccine efficacy against infection, and specified 10% pre-existing population immunity for the base-case scenario. The model was calibrated to an effective reproduction number of 1.2, accounting for current non-pharmaceutical interventions in the US., Results: Vaccination reduced the overall attack rate to 4.6% (95% CrI: 4.3% - 5.0%) from 9.0% (95% CrI: 8.4% - 9.4%) without vaccination, over 300 days. The highest relative reduction (54-62%) was observed among individuals aged 65 and older. Vaccination markedly reduced adverse outcomes, with non-ICU hospitalizations, ICU hospitalizations, and deaths decreasing by 63.5% (95% CrI: 60.3% - 66.7%), 65.6% (95% CrI: 62.2% - 68.6%), and 69.3% (95% CrI: 65.5% - 73.1%), respectively, across the same period., Conclusions: Our results indicate that vaccination can have a substantial impact on mitigating COVID-19 outbreaks, even with limited protection against infection. However, continued compliance with non-pharmaceutical interventions is essential to achieve this impact., Competing Interests: Competing Interests. Dr. Joanne M. Langley reports that her institution has received funding for research studies from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Janssen and Pfizer. Dr. Joanne M. Langley also holds the CIHR-GSK Chair in Pediatric Vaccinology at Dalhousie University. Dr. Neuzil’s research center received funding for research studies from Pfizer. Other authors declare no competing interests.

Background: Public health measures, such as social distancing and closure of schools and non-essential services, were rapidly implemented in Canada to interrupt the spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Objective: We sought to investigate the impact of mitigation measures during the spring wave of COVID-19 on the incidence of other laboratory-confirmed respiratory viruses in Hamilton, Ontario., Methods: All nasopharyngeal swab specimens (n = 57,503) submitted for routine respiratory virus testing at a regional laboratory serving all acute-care hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario between January 2010 and June 2020 were reviewed. Testing for influenza A/B, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza Iâ€"III, adenovirus and rhinovirus/enterovirus was done routinely using a laboratory-developed polymerase chain reaction multiplex respiratory viral panel. A Bayesian linear regression model was used to determine the trend of positivity rates of all influenza samples for the first 26 weeks of each year from 2010 to 2019. The mean positivity rate of Bayesian inference was compared with the weekly reported positivity rate of influenza samples in 2020., Results: The positivity rate of influenza in 2020 diminished sharply following the population-wide implementation of COVID-19 interventions. Weeks 12-26 reported 0% positivity for influenza, with the exception of 0.1% reported in week 13., Conclusions: Public health measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a reduced incidence of other respiratory viruses and should be considered to mitigate severe seasonal influenza and other respiratory virus pandemics.

Objective: Current COVID-19 guidelines recommend symptom-based screening and regular nasopharyngeal (NP) testing for healthcare personnel in high-risk settings. We sought to estimate case detection percentages with various routine NP and saliva testing frequencies., Design: Simulation modelling study., Methods: We constructed a sensitivity function based on the average infectiousness profile of symptomatic COVID-19 cases to determine the probability of being identified at the time of testing. This function was fitted to reported data on the percent positivity of symptomatic COVID-19 patients using NP testing. We then simulated a routine testing program with different NP and saliva testing frequencies to determine case detection percentages during the infectious period, as well as the pre-symptomatic stage., Results: Routine bi-weekly NP testing, once every two weeks, identified an average of 90.7% (SD: 0.18) of cases during the infectious period and 19.7% (SD: 0.98) during the pre-symptomatic stage. With a weekly NP testing frequency, the corresponding case detection percentages were 95.9% (SD: 0.18) and 32.9% (SD: 1.23), respectively. A 5-day saliva testing schedule had a similar case detection percentage as weekly NP testing during the infectious period, but identified about 10% more cases (mean: 42.5%; SD: 1.10) during the pre-symptomatic stage., Conclusion: Our findings highlight the utility of routine non-invasive saliva testing for frontline healthcare workers to protect vulnerable patient populations. A 5-day saliva testing schedule should be considered to help identify silent infections and prevent outbreaks in nursing homes and healthcare facilities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interest: Joanne Langley reports that Dalhousie University has received payment for conduct of vaccine studies from Sanofi, Glaxo-SmithKline, Merck, Janssen, VBI and Pfizer. Dr. Langley holds the Canadian Institutes of Health Research-GlaxoSmithKline Chair in Pediatric Vaccinology. No other competing interests were declared.

As economic woes of the COVID-19 pandemic deepen, strategies are being formulated to avoid the need for prolonged stay-at-home orders, while implementing risk-based quarantine, testing, contact tracing and surveillance protocols. Given limited resources and the significant economic, public health, and operational challenges of the current 14-day quarantine recommendation, it is vital to understand if shorter but equally effective quarantine and testing strategies can be deployed. To quantify the probability of post-quarantine transmission upon isolation of a positive test, we developed a mathematical model in which we varied quarantine duration and the timing of molecular tests for three scenarios of entry into quarantine. Specifically, we consider travel quarantine, quarantine of traced contacts with an unknown time if infection, and quarantine of cases with a known time of exposure. With a one-day delay between test and result, we found that testing on exit (or entry and exit) can reduce the duration of a 14-day quarantine by 50%, while testing on entry shortened quarantine by at most one day. Testing on exit more effectively reduces post-quarantine transmission than testing upon entry. Furthermore, we identified the optimal testing date within quarantines of varying duration, finding that testing on exit was most effective for quarantines lasting up to seven days. As a real-world validation of these principles, we analyzed the results of 4,040 SARS CoV-2 RT-PCR tests administered to offshore oil rig employees. Among the 47 positives obtained with a testing on entry and exit strategy, 16 cases that previously tested negative at entry were identified, with no further cases detected among employees following quarantine exit. Moreover, this strategy successfully prevented an expected nine offshore transmission events stemming from cases who had tested negative on the entry test, each one a serious concern for initiating rapid spread and a disabling outbreak in the close quarters of an offshore rig. This successful outcome highlights that appropriately timed testing can make shorter quarantines more effective, thereby minimizing economic impacts, disruptions to operational integrity, and COVID-related public health risks.