Differences in influenza vaccination by gender identity and state-level gender equity policies: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that there are one million transgender and over 340,000 gender non-conforming people in the United States, many of whom face significant health disparities including access to healthcare. Although previous studies have reported greater vaccine uptake in women compared to men, national-level estimates of influenza vaccine uptake among transgender and non-binary people are unknown. This study aims to characterize differences in influenza vaccine uptake by gender identity and examine associations between vaccination status and state-level gender equity policies. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from adults participating in the 2015-2019 United States Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System surveys. Weighted prevalence differences (PDs) and associated confidence intervals (CIs) of being unvaccinated against influenza by self-reported gender identity were estimated using generalized linear regression models. RESULTS: Compared to cisgender women (unvaccinated prevalence = 57.3%), the prevalence of being unvaccinated was significantly higher among cisgender men (64.4%; PD = 7.0 per 100, 95% CI: 6.7-7.4), transgender women (65.4%; PD = 8.1 per 100, 95% CI 4.0-12.2), transgender men (64.6%; PD = 7.3 per 100, 95% CI: 2.7-11.8), and gender non-conforming individuals (64.6%; PD = 7.2 per 100, 95% CI: 1.3-13.2). This pattern was similar among individuals living in states with protective versus restrictive gender equity policies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results identified a disparity in influenza vaccine uptake among individuals across the gender spectrum. To improve vaccine equity, future research should explore barriers to and facilitators of vaccine uptake by gender identity, which could inform policies and health promotion interventions to improve uptake co-designed and implemented with the transgender and non-binary communities.

Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors among staff and residents at homeless shelters in King County, Washington: an active surveillance study.

Homeless shelter residents and staff may be at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, SARS-CoV-2 infection estimates in this population have been reliant on cross-sectional or outbreak investigation data. We conducted routine surveillance and outbreak testing in 23 homeless shelters in King County, Washington, to estimate the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk factors during 1 January 2020-31 May 2021. Symptom surveys and nasal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 testing by RT-PCR for residents aged ≥3 months and staff. We collected 12,915 specimens from 2,930 unique participants. We identified 4.74 (95% CI 4.00-5.58) SARS-CoV-2 infections per 100 individuals (residents: 4.96, 95% CI 4.12-5.91; staff: 3.86, 95% CI 2.43-5.79). Most infections were asymptomatic at the time of detection (74%) and detected during routine surveillance (73%). Outbreak testing yielded higher test positivity than routine surveillance (2.7% versus 0.9%). Among those infected, residents were less likely to report symptoms than staff. Participants who were vaccinated against seasonal influenza and were current smokers had lower odds of having an infection detected. Active surveillance that includes SARS-CoV-2 testing of all persons is essential in ascertaining the true burden of SARS-CoV-2 infections among residents and staff of congregate settings.

Burden of long COVID among adults experiencing sheltered homelessness: a longitudinal cohort study in King County, WA between September 2020-April 2022.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at increased risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2, but the burden of long COVID in this population is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a matched prospective cohort study to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and impact of long COVID among sheltered PEH in Seattle, WA between September 2020-April 2022. Adults ≥ 18 years, residing across nine homeless shelters with active respiratory virus surveillance, were eligible to complete in-person baseline surveys and interval follow-up phone surveys. We included a subset of 22 COVID-19-positive cases who tested positive or inconclusive for SARS-CoV-2 and 44 COVID-19-negative controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, frequency matched on age and sex. Among controls, 22 were positive and 22 were negative for one of 27 other respiratory virus pathogens. To assess the impact of COVID-19 on the risk of symptom presence at follow-up (day 30-225 post-enrollment test), we performed log-linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for confounding by shelter site and demographic variables determined a priori. RESULTS: Of 53 eligible COVID-19 cases, 22 (42%) completed ≥ 1 follow-up survey. While five (23%) cases reported ≥ 1 symptom at baseline, this increased to 77% (10/13) between day 30-59 and 33% (4/12) day 90 + . The most commonly reported symptoms day 30 + were fatigue (27%) and rhinorrhea (27%), with 8 (36%) reporting symptoms that interfered with or prevented daily activities. Four (33%) symptomatic cases reported receiving medical care outside of a medical provider at an isolation facility. Of 44 controls, 12 (27%) reported any symptoms day 90 + . Risk of any symptoms at follow-up was 5.4 times higher among COVID-19 cases compared to controls (95% CI: 2.7-10.5). CONCLUSIONS: Shelter residents reported a high prevalence of symptoms 30 + days after their SARS-CoV-2 detection, though few accessed medical care for persistent illness. The impact of COVID-19 extends beyond acute illness and may exacerbate existing challenges that marginalized populations face in maintaining their health and wellbeing.

The Clinical and Genomic Epidemiology of Rhinovirus in Homeless Shelters-King County, Washington.

BACKGROUND: Rhinovirus (RV) is a common cause of respiratory illness in all people, including those experiencing homelessness. RV epidemiology in homeless shelters is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cross-sectional homeless shelter study in King County, Washington, October 2019-May 2021. Shelter residents or guardians aged ≥3 months reporting acute respiratory illness completed questionnaires and submitted nasal swabs. After 1 April 2020, enrollment expanded to residents and staff regardless of symptoms. Samples were tested by multiplex RT-PCR for respiratory viruses. A subset of RV-positive samples was sequenced. RESULTS: There were 1066 RV-positive samples with RV present every month of the study period. RV was the most common virus before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (43% and 77% of virus-positive samples, respectively). Participants from family shelters had the highest prevalence of RV. Among 131 sequenced samples, 33 RV serotypes were identified with each serotype detected for ≤4 months. CONCLUSIONS: RV infections persisted through community mitigation measures and were most prevalent in shelters housing families. Sequencing showed a diversity of circulating RV serotypes, each detected over short periods of time. Community-based surveillance in congregate settings is important to characterize respiratory viral infections during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04141917.

Human Parainfluenza Virus in Homeless Shelters before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic, Washington, USA.

To determine the epidemiology of human parainfluenza virus in homeless shelters during the COVID-19 pandemic, we analyzed data and sequences from respiratory specimens collected in 23 shelters in Washington, USA, during 2019-2021. Two clusters in children were genetically similar by shelter of origin. Shelter-specific interventions are needed to reduce these infections.

The value of decreasing the duration of the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Finding medications or vaccines that may decrease the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) could potentially reduce transmission in the broader population. We developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential clinical and economic impact of reducing the infectious period duration. Simulation experiments found that reducing the average infectious period duration could avert a median of 442,852 [treating 25% of symptomatic cases, reducing by 0.5 days, reproductive number (R0) 3.5, and starting treatment when 15% of the population has been exposed] to 44.4 million SARS-CoV-2 cases (treating 75% of all infected cases, reducing by 3.5 days, R0 2.0). With R0 2.5, reducing the average infectious period duration by 0.5 days for 25% of symptomatic cases averted 1.4 million cases and 99,398 hospitalizations; increasing to 75% of symptomatic cases averted 2.8 million cases. At $500/person, treating 25% of symptomatic cases saved $209.5 billion (societal perspective). Further reducing the average infectious period duration by 3.5 days averted 7.4 million cases (treating 25% of symptomatic cases). Expanding treatment to 75% of all infected cases, including asymptomatic infections (R0 2.5), averted 35.9 million cases and 4 million hospitalizations, saving $48.8 billion (societal perspective and starting treatment after 5% of the population has been exposed). Our study quantifies the potential effects of reducing the SARS-CoV-2 infectious period duration.

Lives and Costs Saved by Expanding and Expediting Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: With multiple coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines available, understanding the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of increasing coverage levels and expediting vaccination is important. METHODS: We developed a computational model (transmission and age-stratified clinical and economics outcome model) representing the United States population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread (February 2020-December 2022), and vaccination to determine the impact of increasing coverage and expediting time to achieve coverage. RESULTS: When achieving a given vaccination coverage in 270 days (70% vaccine efficacy), every 1% increase in coverage can avert an average of 876 800 (217 000-2 398 000) cases, varying with the number of people already vaccinated. For example, each 1% increase between 40% and 50% coverage can prevent 1.5 million cases, 56 240 hospitalizations, and 6660 deaths; gain 77 590 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and save $602.8 million in direct medical costs and $1.3 billion in productivity losses. Expediting to 180 days could save an additional 5.8 million cases, 215 790 hospitalizations, 26 370 deaths, 206 520 QALYs, $3.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $4.3 billion in productivity losses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study quantifies the potential value of decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccination coverage and how this value may decrease with the time it takes to achieve coverage, emphasizing the need to reach high coverage levels as soon as possible, especially before the fall/winter.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak in a San Francisco Homeless Shelter.

We report the public health response to a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in a San Francisco shelter where 67% of residents and 17% of staff tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We describe the limited utility of case investigation, person-based contact tracing and symptom screening, and the benefits of mass testing in outbreak response.

Comparison of infection control strategies to reduce COVID-19 outbreaks in homeless shelters in the United States: a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in homeless shelters across the US, highlighting an urgent need to identify the most effective infection control strategy to prevent future outbreaks. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a homeless shelter and calibrated it to data from cross-sectional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) surveys conducted during COVID-19 outbreaks in five homeless shelters in three US cities from March 28 to April 10, 2020. We estimated the probability of averting a COVID-19 outbreak when an exposed individual is introduced into a representative homeless shelter of 250 residents and 50 staff over 30 days under different infection control strategies, including daily symptom-based screening, twice-weekly PCR testing, and universal mask wearing. RESULTS: The proportion of PCR-positive residents and staff at the shelters with observed outbreaks ranged from 2.6 to 51.6%, which translated to the basic reproduction number (R0) estimates of 2.9-6.2. With moderate community incidence (~ 30 confirmed cases/1,000,000 people/day), the estimated probabilities of averting an outbreak in a low-risk (R0 = 1.5), moderate-risk (R0 = 2.9), and high-risk (R0 = 6.2) shelter were respectively 0.35, 0.13, and 0.04 for daily symptom-based screening; 0.53, 0.20, and 0.09 for twice-weekly PCR testing; 0.62, 0.27, and 0.08 for universal masking; and 0.74, 0.42, and 0.19 for these strategies in combination. The probability of averting an outbreak diminished with higher transmissibility (R0) within the simulated shelter and increasing incidence in the local community. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk homeless shelter environments and locations with high community incidence of COVID-19, even intensive infection control strategies (incorporating daily symptom screening, frequent PCR testing, and universal mask wearing) are unlikely to prevent outbreaks, suggesting a need for non-congregate housing arrangements for people experiencing homelessness. In lower-risk environments, combined interventions should be employed to reduce outbreak risk.

The Potential Clinical and Economic Value of a Human Papillomavirus Primary Screening Test That Additionally Identifies Genotypes 31, 45, 51, and 52 Individually.

BACKGROUND: Although current human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype screening tests identify genotypes 16 and 18 and do not specifically identify other high-risk types, a new extended genotyping test identifies additional individual (31, 45, 51, and 52) and groups (33/58, 35/39/68, and 56/59/66) of high-risk genotypes. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of the HPV disease course and evaluated the clinical and economic value of HPV primary screening with Onclarity (BD Diagnostics, Franklin Lakes, NJ) capable of extended genotyping in a cohort of women 30 years or older. Women with certain genotypes were later rescreened instead of undergoing immediate colposcopy and varied which genotypes were rescreened, disease progression rate, and test cost. RESULTS: Assuming 100% compliance with screening, HPV primary screening using current tests resulted in 25,194 invasive procedures and 48 invasive cervical cancer (ICC) cases per 100,000 women. Screening with extended genotyping (100% compliance) and later rescreening women with certain genotypes averted 903 to 3163 invasive procedures and resulted in 0 to 3 more ICC cases compared with current HPV primary screening tests. Extended genotyping was cost-effective ($2298-$7236/quality-adjusted life year) when costing $75 and cost saving (median, $0.3-$1.0 million) when costing $43. When the probabilities of disease progression increased (2-4 times), extended genotyping was not cost-effective because it resulted in more ICC cases and accrued fewer quality-adjusted life years. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified the conditions under which extended genotyping was cost-effective and even cost saving compared with current tests. A key driver of cost-effectiveness is the risk of disease progression, which emphasizes the need to better understand such risks in different populations.

What If the Influenza Vaccine Did Not Offer Such Variable Protection?

BACKGROUND: The protection that an influenza vaccine offers can vary significantly from person to person due to differences in immune systems, body types, and other factors. The question, then, is what is the value of efforts to reduce this variability such as making vaccines more personalized and tailored to individuals. METHODS: We developed a compartment model of the United States to simulate different influenza seasons and the impact of reducing the variability in responses to the influenza vaccine across the population. RESULTS: Going from a vaccine that varied in efficacy (0-30%) to one that had a uniform 30% efficacy for everyone averted 16.0-31.2 million cases, $1.9-$3.6 billion in direct medical costs, and $16.1-$42.7 billion in productivity losses. Going from 0-50% in efficacy to just 50% for everyone averted 27.7-38.6 million cases, $3.3-$4.6 billion in direct medical costs, and $28.8-$57.4 billion in productivity losses. Going from 0-70% to 70% averted 33.6-54.1 million cases, $4.0-$6.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $44.8-$64.7 billion in productivity losses. CONCLUSIONS: This study quantifies for policy makers, funders, and vaccine developers and manufacturers the potential impact of efforts to reduce variability in the protection that influenza vaccines offer (eg, developing vaccines that are more personalized to different individual factors).

What Is the Value of Different Zika Vaccination Strategies to Prevent and Mitigate Zika Outbreaks?

BACKGROUND: While the 2015-2016 Zika epidemics prompted accelerated vaccine development, decision makers need to know the potential economic value of vaccination strategies. METHODS: We developed models of Honduras, Brazil, and Puerto Rico, simulated targeting different populations for Zika vaccination (women of childbearing age, school-aged children, young adults, and everyone) and then introduced various Zika outbreaks. Sensitivity analyses varied vaccine characteristics. RESULTS: With a 2% attack rate ($5 vaccination), compared to no vaccination, vaccinating women of childbearing age cost $314-$1664 per case averted ($790-$4221/disability-adjusted life-year [DALY] averted) in Honduras, and saved $847-$1644/case averted in Brazil, and $3648-$4177/case averted in Puerto Rico, varying with vaccination coverage and efficacy (societal perspective). Vaccinating school-aged children cost $718-$1849/case averted (≤$5002/DALY averted) in Honduras, saved $819-$1609/case averted in Brazil, and saved $3823-$4360/case averted in Puerto Rico. Vaccinating young adults cost $310-$1666/case averted ($731-$4017/DALY averted) in Honduras, saved $953-$1703/case averted in Brazil, and saved $3857-$4372/case averted in Puerto Rico. Vaccinating everyone averted more cases but cost more, decreasing cost savings per case averted. Vaccination resulted in more cost savings and better outcomes at higher attack rates. CONCLUSIONS: When considering transmission, while vaccinating everyone naturally averted the most cases, specifically targeting women of childbearing age or young adults was the most cost-effective.

Interactive Malaria Education Intervention and Its Effect on Community Participant Knowledge: The Malaria Awareness Program in Vhembe District, Limpopo, South Africa.

Malaria is preventable and treatable, yet remains the most prevalent parasitic endemic disease in Africa. This article analyzes prospective observational data from the Malaria Awareness Program (MAP), an interactive malaria education initiative led by home-based care workers to improve participant knowledge of malaria as a precursor to increased uptake of malaria control interventions in the Vhembe District, Limpopo, South Africa. Between 2012 and 2016, 1,330 individuals participated in MAP. MAP's effectiveness was measured through pre- and post-participation surveys assessing knowledge in malaria transmission, symptoms, prevention, and treatment. The primary analysis assessed differences in knowledge between individuals who completed MAP ( n = 499) and individuals who did not complete MAP ( n = 399). The adjusted odds of correct malaria knowledge score versus partially correct or incorrect score among MAP completers was 3.3 and 2.8 times greater for transmission and prevention, respectively ( p values<.001). A subanalysis assessed knowledge improvement among participants who completed both pre- and post-MAP intervention surveys ( n = 266). There was a 21.4% and 10.5% increase in the proportion of participants who cited correct malaria transmission and prevention methods, respectively. Future research should assess behavioral changes toward malaria prevention and treatment as a result of an intervention and examine incidence changes in the region.

Impact of HIV self-testing for oral pre-exposure prophylaxis scale-up on drug resistance and HIV outcomes in western Kenya: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Community-based oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provision has the potential to expand PrEP coverage. HIV self-testing can facilitate PrEP community-based delivery but might have lower sensitivity than facility-based HIV testing, potentially leading to inappropriate PrEP use among people with HIV and subsequent development of drug resistance. We aimed to evaluate the impact of HIV self-testing use for PrEP scale-up. METHODS: We parameterised an agent-based network model, EMOD-HIV, to simulate generic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine PrEP scale-up in western Kenya using four testing scenarios: provider-administered nucleic acid testing, provider-administered rapid diagnostic tests detecting antibodies, blood-based HIV self-testing, or oral fluid HIV self-testing. Scenarios were compared with a no PrEP counterfactual. Individuals aged 18-49 years with one or more heterosexual partners who screened HIV-negative were eligible for PrEP. We assessed the cost and health impact of rapid PrEP scale-up with high coverage over 20 years, and the budget impact over 5 years, using various HIV testing modalities. FINDINGS: PrEP coverage of 29% was projected to avert approximately 54% of HIV infections and 17% of HIV-related deaths among adults aged 18-49 years over 20 years; health impacts were similar across HIV testing modalities used to deliver PrEP. The percentage of HIV infections with PrEP-associated nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) drug resistance was 0·6% (95% uncertainty intervals 0·4-0·9) in the blood HIV self-testing scenario and 0·8% (0·6-1·0) in the oral HIV self-testing scenario, compared with 0·3% (0·2-0·3) in the antibody rapid diagnostic testing scenario and 0·2% (0·1-0·2) in the nucleic acid testing scenario. Accounting for background NRTI resistance, we found similarly low proportions of drug resistance across scenarios. The budget impact of implementing PrEP using HIV self-testing and provider-administered rapid diagnostic tests were similar, while nucleic acid testing was approximately 50% more costly. INTERPRETATION: Scaling up PrEP using HIV self-testing has similar health impacts, costs, and low risk of drug resistance as provider-administered rapid diagnostic tests. Policy makers should consider leveraging HIV self-testing to expand PrEP access among those at HIV risk. FUNDING: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Previous Health Care Experiences' Influence on Health Care Perceptions Among Residents of Six Homeless Shelters in Seattle, Washington, July-October 2021.

Purpose: The study purpose was to learn and describe 1) where homeless shelter residents receive health care, 2) what contributes to positive or negative health care experiences among shelter residents, and 3) shelter resident perceptions toward health care. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (SSIs) utilizing purposive sampling and focus group discussions (FGDs) utilizing convenience sampling were conducted at 6 homeless shelters in Seattle-King County, Washington, during July-October 2021. All residents (age ≥18) were eligible to participate. SSIs were conducted with 25 residents, and 8 FGDs were held. Thematic analysis was conducted using Dedoose. Results: Participants received health care in settings ranging from no regular care to primary care providers. Four elements emerged as contributing positively and negatively to health care experiences: 1) ability to access health care financially, physically, and technologically; 2) clarity of communication from providers and staff about appointment logistics, diagnoses, and treatment options; 3) ease of securing timely follow-up services; and 4) respect versus stigma and discrimination from providers and staff. Participants who felt positively toward health care found low- or no-cost care to be widely available and encouraged others to seek care. However, some participants described health care in the United States as greedy, classist, discriminatory, and untrustworthy. Participants reported delaying care and self-medicating in anticipation of discrimination. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate that while people experiencing homelessness can have positive experiences with health care, many have faced negative interactions with health systems. Improving the patient experience for those experiencing homelessness can increase engagement and improve health outcomes.

CASCADIA: a prospective community-based study protocol for assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness in children and adults using a remote nasal swab collection and web-based survey design.

INTRODUCTION: Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were first approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in late 2020 for adults, authorisation for young children 6 months to <5 years of age did not occur until 2022. These authorisations were based on clinical trials, understanding real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the setting of emerging variants is critical. The primary goal of this study is to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 VE against infection among children aged >6 months and adults aged <50 years. METHODS: CASCADIA is a 4-year community-based prospective study of SARS-CoV-2 VE among 3500 adults and paediatric populations aged 6 months to 49 years in Oregon and Washington, USA. At enrolment and regular intervals, participants complete a sociodemographic questionnaire. Individuals provide a blood sample at enrolment and annually thereafter, with optional blood draws every 6 months and after infection and vaccination. Participants complete weekly self-collection of anterior nasal swabs and symptom questionnaires. Swabs are tested for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens by reverse transcription-PCR, with results of selected pathogens returned to participants; nasal swabs with SARS-CoV-2 detected will undergo whole genome sequencing. Participants who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 undergo serial swab collection every 3 days for 21 days. Serum samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibody by binding and neutralisation assays. ANALYSIS: The primary outcome is SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cox regression models will be used to estimate the incidence rate ratio associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among the paediatric and adult population, controlling for demographic factors and other potential confounders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All study materials including the protocol, consent forms, data collection instruments, participant communication and recruitment materials, were approved by the Kaiser Permanente Interregional Institutional Review Board, the IRB of record for the study. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations, participant newsletters and appropriate general news media.

COVID-19 and the malaria elimination agenda in Africa: Re-shifting the focus.

The global Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in public health, political, scientific and private sector response at an unprecedented scale. However, this shift in focus has caused widespread disruption to global health services and has the potential to reverse gains made in efforts to control malaria. If health systems are not able to maintain malaria control interventions while managing the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, malaria cases will increase, thereby placing even more strain on already overtaxed systems. Using a Narrative Review Approach, this commentary explores the impact of COVID-19 on progress made with malaria control and prevention strategies in Africa; and discusses possible mitigation steps to aid community resilience building, through proactive planning and implementation of integrated, inclusive and sustainable strategies to re-shift the focus to attain the malaria elimination goals. We propose strengthening community partnerships, where academia and communities should collaborate and these knowledge-sharing strategies be implemented in order for awareness and interventions to become more networked, inclusive, resilient and effective. Communities should be viewed as 'thought partners', who challenge conventional strategies and aid in developing innovative approaches to community resilience building.

Maintaining face mask use before and after achieving different COVID-19 vaccination coverage levels: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Face mask wearing has been an important part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As vaccination coverage progresses in countries, relaxation of such practices is increasing. Subsequent COVID-19 surges have raised the questions of whether face masks should be encouraged or required and for how long. Here, we aim to assess the value of maintaining face masks use indoors according to different COVID-19 vaccination coverage levels in the USA. METHODS: In this computational simulation-model study, we developed and used a Monte Carlo simulation model representing the US population and SARS-CoV-2 spread. Simulation experiments compared what would happen if face masks were used versus not used until given final vaccination coverages were achieved. Different scenarios varied the target vaccination coverage (70-90%), the date these coverages were achieved (Jan 1, 2022, to July 1, 2022), and the date the population discontinued wearing face masks. FINDINGS: Simulation experiments revealed that maintaining face mask use (at the coverage seen in the USA from March, 2020, to July, 2020) until target vaccination coverages were achieved was cost-effective and in many cases cost saving from both the societal and third-party payer perspectives across nearly all scenarios explored. Face mask use was estimated to be cost-effective and usually cost saving when the cost of face masks per person per day was ≤US$1·25. In all scenarios, it was estimated to be cost-effective to maintain face mask use for about 2-10 weeks beyond the date that target vaccination coverage (70-90%) was achieved, with this added duration being longer when the target coverage was achieved during winter versus summer. Factors that might increase the transmissibility of the virus (eg, emergence of the delta [B.1.617.2] and omicron [B.1.1.529] variants), or decrease vaccine effectiveness (eg, waning immunity or escape variants), or increase social interactions among certain segments of the population, only increased the cost savings or cost-effectiveness provided by maintaining face mask use. INTERPRETATION: Our study provides strong support for maintaining face mask use until and a short time after achieving various final vaccination coverage levels, given that maintaining face mask use can be not just cost-effective, but even cost saving. The emergence of the omicron variant and the prospect of future variants that might be more transmissible and reduce vaccine effectiveness only increases the value of face masks. FUNDING: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the City University of New York.

Trends in COVID-19 vaccination intent and factors associated with deliberation and reluctance among adult homeless shelter residents and staff, 1 November 2020 to 28 February 2021 - King County, Washington.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about COVID-19 vaccination intent among people experiencing homelessness. This study assesses surveyed COVID-19 vaccination intent among adult homeless shelter residents and staff and identifies factors associated with vaccine deliberation (responded "undecided") and reluctance (responded "no"), including time trends. METHODS: From 11/1/2020-2/28/21, we conducted repeated cross-sectional surveys at nine shelters in King County, WA as part of ongoing community-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. We used a multinomial model to identify characteristics associated with vaccine deliberation and reluctance. RESULTS: A total of 969 unique staff (n = 297) and residents (n = 672) participated and provided 3966 survey responses. Among residents, 53.7% (n = 361) were vaccine accepting, 28.1% reluctant, 17.6% deliberative, and 0.6% already vaccinated, whereas among staff 56.2% were vaccine accepting, 14.1% were reluctant, 16.5% were deliberative, and 13.1% already vaccinated at their last survey. We observed higher odds of vaccine deliberation or reluctance among Black/African American individuals, those who did not receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, and those with lower educational attainment. There was no significant trend towards vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Strong disparities in vaccine intent based on race, education, and prior vaccine history were observed. Increased vaccine intent over the study period was not detected. An intersectional, person-centered approach to addressing health inequities by public health authorities planning vaccination campaigns in shelters is recommended. Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04141917.

Trends and factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccination intent among residents and staff in six Seattle homeless shelters, March 2020 to August 2021.

Introduction: Achieving high COVID-19 vaccination coverage in homeless shelters is critical in preventing morbidity, mortality, and outbreaks, however, vaccination coverage remains lower among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) than the general population. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to retrospectively describe attitudes and identify factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccination intent among shelter residents and staff during March 2020 - August 2021. To identify factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccine intent becoming more positive overall compared to other attitudes, we utilized a Poisson model to calculate Risk Ratios with robust standard errors, adjusting for confounding by shelter site and demographic variables determined a priori. Results: From July 12 - August 2, 2021, 97 residents and 20 staff participated in surveys across six shelters in Seattle King County, Washington. Intent to be vaccinated against COVID-19 increased from 45.3 % (n = 53) when recalling attitudes in March 2020 to 74.4 % (n = 87) as of August 2021, and was similar among residents and staff. Many participants (43.6 %, n = 51) indicated feeling increasingly accepting about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine since March 2020, while 13.7 % (n = 16) changed back and forth, 10.3 % (n = 12) became more hesitant, and 32.5 % (n = 38) had no change in intent. In the model examining the relationship between becoming more positive about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine compared to all other attitudes (n = 116), we found a 57.2 % increase in vaccine acceptability (RR 1.57; 95 % CI: 1.01, 2.45) among those who reported worsening mental health since the start of the pandemic. Conclusions: Findings highlight opportunities to improve communication with residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination and support a need for continued dialogue and a person-centered approach to understanding the sociocultural complexities and dynamism of vaccine attitudes at shelters.Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04141917.