Search

Though widely applied in other epidemiological fields, the case-cohort study design has seen little application in the field of vaccinology. Case-cohort studies use probabilistic sampling and reweighting to draw inferences about effects (in this case vaccine efficacy) at the population level in an efficient manner. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was met with high vaccine uptake, and high rates of population testing prior to the emergence of Omicron variants of concern, in Ontario, Canada, providing an ideal environment for application of case-cohort methodology. We combined a population-based case line list and vaccination database for the province of Ontario between December 2020 and October 2021. Risk of infection after vaccination was evaluated in all laboratory-confirmed vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 cases, and a 2 % sample of vaccinated controls, evaluated using survival analytic methods, including construction of Cox proportional hazards models. Vaccination status was treated as a time-varying covariate. First and second doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine markedly reduced risk of infection (first dose efficacy 68 %, 95 % CI 67 %-69 %; second dose efficacy 88 %, 95 % CI 87-88 %). In multivariable models, extended dosing intervals were associated with lowest risk of breakthrough infection (HR for redosing 0.64 (95 % CI 0.61-0.67) at 6-8 weeks). Heterologous vaccine schedules that mixed viral vector vaccine first doses with mRNA second doses were significantly more effective than mRNA only vaccines. Risk of infection largely vanished during the time period 4-6 months after the second vaccine dose, but rose markedly thereafter. We conclude that a case-cohort design provided an efficient means to identify strong protective effects associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in real time, and also served to quantify the timing and magnitude of infection breakthrough risk in the same cohort. Heterologous vaccination and extended dosing intervals improved the durability of immune response., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: David Fisman reports financial support was provided by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. David Fisman reports a relationship with Pfizer Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. David Fisman reports a relationship with Seqirus Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. David Fisman reports a relationship with AstraZeneca Canada Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. David Fisman reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. David Fisman reports a relationship with Sanofi Pasteur Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. David Fisman reports a relationship with Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario that includes: paid expert testimony. David Fisman reports a relationship with Ontario Nurses’ Association that includes: paid expert testimony. Ashleigh Tuite reports a relationship with Public Health Agency of Canada that includes: employment. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, policymakers have had to navigate between recommending voluntary behaviour change and policy-driven behaviour change to mitigate the impact of the virus. While individuals will voluntarily engage in self-protective behaviour when there is an increasing infectious disease risk, the extent to which this occurs and its impact on an epidemic is not known., Methods: This paper describes a deterministic disease transmission model exploring the impact of individual avoidance behaviour and policy-mediated avoidance behaviour on epidemic outcomes during the second wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Ontario, Canada (September 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021). The model incorporates an information feedback function based on empirically derived behaviour data describing the degree to which avoidance behaviour changed in response to the number of new daily cases COVID-19., Results: Voluntary avoidance behaviour alone was estimated to reduce the final attack rate by 23.1%, the total number of hospitalizations by 26.2%, and cumulative deaths by 27.5% over 6 months compared to a counterfactual scenario in which there were no interventions or avoidance behaviour. A provincial shutdown order issued on December 26, 2020 was estimated to reduce the final attack rate by 66.7%, the total number of hospitalizations by 66.8%, and the total number of deaths by 67.2% compared to the counterfactual scenario., Conclusion: Given the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in a pre-vaccine era, individual avoidance behaviour in the absence of government action would have resulted in a moderate reduction in disease however, it would not have been sufficient to entirely mitigate transmission and the associated risk to the population in Ontario. Government action during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario reduced infections, protected hospital capacity, and saved lives., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: We previously demonstrated that when vaccines prevent infection, the dynamics of mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated sub-populations is such that use of imperfect vaccines markedly decreases risk for vaccinated people, and for the population overall. Risks to vaccinated people accrue disproportionately from contact with unvaccinated people. In the context of the emergence of Omicron SARS-CoV-2 and evolving understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, we updated our analysis to evaluate whether our earlier conclusions remained valid., Methods: We modified a previously published Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered (SIR) compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 with two connected sub-populations: vaccinated and unvaccinated, with non-random mixing between groups. Our expanded model incorporates diminished vaccine efficacy for preventing infection with the emergence of Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants, waning immunity, the impact of prior immune experience on infectivity, "hybrid" effects of infection in previously vaccinated individuals, and booster vaccination. We evaluated the dynamics of an epidemic within each subgroup and in the overall population over a 10-year time horizon., Results: Even with vaccine efficacy as low as 20%, and in the presence of waning immunity, the incidence of COVID-19 in the vaccinated subpopulation was lower than that among the unvaccinated population across the full 10-year time horizon. The cumulative risk of infection was 3-4 fold higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people, and unvaccinated people contributed to infection risk among vaccinated individuals at twice the rate that would have been expected based on the frequency of contacts. These findings were robust across a range of assumptions around the rate of waning immunity, the impact of "hybrid immunity", frequency of boosting, and the impact of prior infection on infectivity in unvaccinated people., Interpretation: Although the emergence of the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 has diminished the protective effects of vaccination against infection with SARS-CoV-2, updating our earlier model to incorporate loss of immunity, diminished vaccine efficacy and a longer time horizon, does not qualitatively change our earlier conclusions. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 continues to diminish the risk of infection among vaccinated people and in the population as a whole. By contrast, the risk of infection among vaccinated people accrues disproportionately from contact with unvaccinated people., (Copyright: © 2024 Fisman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Tools to advance antimicrobial stewardship in the primary health care setting, where most antimicrobials are prescribed, are urgently needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate OPEN Stewarship (Online Platform for Expanding aNtibiotic Stewardship), an automated feedback intervention, among a cohort of primary care physicians. We performed a controlled, interrupted time-series study of 32 intervention and 725 control participants, consisting of primary care physicians from Ontario, Canada and Southern Israel, from October 2020 to December 2021. Intervention participants received three personalized feedback reports targeting several aspects of antibiotic prescribing. Study outcomes (overall prescribing rate, prescribing rate for viral respiratory conditions, prescribing rate for acute sinusitis, and mean duration of therapy) were evaluated using multilevel regression models. We observed a decrease in the mean duration of antibiotic therapy (IRR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99) in intervention participants during the intervention period. We did not observe a significant decline in overall antibiotic prescribing (OR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.07), prescribing for viral respiratory conditions (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.03), or prescribing for acute sinusitis (OR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.07). In this antimicrobial stewardship intervention among primary care physicians, we observed shorter durations of therapy per antibiotic prescription during the intervention period. The COVID-19 pandemic may have hampered recruitment; a dramatic reduction in antibiotic prescribing rates in the months before our intervention may have made physicians less amenable to further reductions in prescribing, limiting the generalizability of the estimates obtained.IMPORTANCEAntibiotic overprescribing contributes to antibiotic resistance, a major threat to our ability to treat infections. We developed the OPEN Stewardship (Online Platform for Expanding aNtibiotic Stewardship) platform to provide automated feedback on antibiotic prescribing in primary care, where most antibiotics for human use are prescribed but where the resources to improve antibiotic prescribing are limited. We evaluated the platform among a cohort of primary care physicians from Ontario, Canada and Southern Israel from October 2020 to December 2021. The results showed that physicians who received personalized feedback reports prescribed shorter courses of antibiotics compared to controls, although they did not write fewer antibiotic prescriptions. While the COVID-19 pandemic presented logistical and analytical challenges, our study suggests that our intervention meaningfully improved an important aspect of antibiotic prescribing. The OPEN Stewardship platform stands as an automated, scalable intervention for improving antibiotic prescribing in primary care, where needs are diverse and technical capacity is limited., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

An interrupted time-series study design was implemented to evaluate the impact of antibiotic stewardship interventions on antibiotic prescribing among veterinarians. A total of 41 veterinarians were enrolled in Canada and Israel and their prescribing data between 2019 and 2021 were obtained. As an intervention, veterinarians periodically received three feedback reports comprising feedback on the participants' antibiotic prescribing and prescribing guidelines. A change in the level and trend of antibiotic prescribing after the administration of the intervention was compared using a multi-level generalized linear mixed-effect negative-binomial model. After the receipt of the first (incidence rate ratios [IRR] = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 0.98), and second (IRR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97) feedback reports, there was a reduced prescribing rate of total antibiotic when other parameters were held constant. This decline was more pronounced among Israeli veterinarians compared to Canadian veterinarians. When other parameters were held constant, the prescribing of critical antibiotics by Canadian veterinarians decreased by a factor of 0.39 compared to that of Israeli veterinarians. Evidently, antibiotic stewardship interventions can improve antibiotic prescribing in a veterinary setting. The strategy to sustain the effect of feedback reports and the determinants of differences between the two cohorts should be further explored.

Mask use for prevention of respiratory infectious disease transmission is not new but has proven controversial during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In Ontario, Canada, irregular regional introduction of community mask mandates in 2020 created a quasi-experiment useful for evaluating the impact of such mandates; however, Ontario SARS-CoV-2 case counts were likely biased by testing focused on long-term care facilities and healthcare workers. We developed a regression-based method that allowed us to adjust cases for under-testing by age and gender. We evaluated mask mandate effects using count-based regression models with either unadjusted cases, or testing-adjusted case counts, as dependent variables. Models were used to estimate mask mandate effectiveness, and the fraction of SARS-CoV-2 cases, severe outcomes, and costs, averted by mask mandates. Models using unadjusted cases as dependent variables identified modest protective effects of mask mandates (range 31-42%), with variable statistical significance. Mask mandate effectiveness in models predicting test-adjusted case counts was higher, ranging from 49% (95% CI 44-53%) to 76% (95% CI 57-86%). The prevented fraction associated with mask mandates was 46% (95% CI 41-51%), with 290,000 clinical cases, 3,008 deaths, and loss of 29,038 quality-adjusted life years averted from 2020 June to December, representing $CDN 610 million in economic wealth. Under-testing in younger individuals biases estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection risk and obscures the impact of public health preventive measures. After adjustment for under-testing, mask mandates emerged as highly effective. Community masking saved substantial numbers of lives, and prevented economic costs, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Ontario, Canada., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of National Academy of Sciences.)