Modelling COVID-19 Vaccination in the UK: Impact of the Autumn 2022 and Spring 2023 Booster Campaigns.

INTRODUCTION: The delivery of COVID-19 vaccines was successful in reducing hospitalizations and mortality. However, emergence of the Omicron variant resulted in increased virus transmissibility. Consequently, booster vaccination programs were initiated to decrease the risk of severe disease and death among vulnerable members of the population. This study aimed to estimate the effects of the booster program and alternative vaccination strategies on morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19 in the UK. METHOD: A Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (SEIR) model was used to assess the impact of several vaccination strategies on severe outcomes associated with COVID-19, including hospitalizations, mortality, National Health Service (NHS) capacity quantified by hospital general ward and intensive care unit (ICU) bed days, and patient productivity. The model accounted for age-, risk- and immunity-based stratification of the UK population. Outcomes were evaluated over a 48-week time horizon from September 2022 to August 2023 considering the actual UK autumn 2022/spring 2023 booster campaigns and six counterfactual strategies. RESULTS: The model estimated that the autumn 2022/spring 2023 booster campaign resulted in a reduction of 18,921 hospitalizations and 1463 deaths, compared with a no booster scenario. Utilization of hospital bed days due to COVID-19 decreased after the autumn 2022/spring 2023 booster campaign. Expanding the booster eligibility criteria and improving uptake improved all outcomes, including averting twice as many ICU admissions, preventing more than 20% additional deaths, and a sevenfold reduction in long COVID, compared with the autumn 2022/spring 2023 booster campaign. The number of productive days lost was reduced by fivefold indicating that vaccinating a wider population has a beneficial impact on the morbidities associated with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Our modelling demonstrates that the autumn 2022/spring 2023 booster campaign reduced COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality. Booster campaigns with alternative eligibility criteria warrant consideration in the UK, given their potential to further reduce morbidity and mortality as future variants emerge.

Psychological distress during the acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of doctors practising in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and intensive care medicine in the UK and Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify psychological distress experienced by emergency, anaesthetic and intensive care doctors during the acceleration phase of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: Initial cross-sectional electronic survey distributed during acceleration phase of the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland (UK: 18 March 2020-26 March 2020 and Ireland: 25 March 2020-2 April 2020). Surveys were distributed via established specialty research networks, within a three-part longitudinal study. Participants were doctors working in emergency, anaesthetic and intensive medicine during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in acute hospitals across the UK and Ireland. Primary outcome measures were the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Additional questions examined personal and professional characteristics, experiences of COVID-19 to date, risk to self and others and self-reported perceptions of health and well-being. RESULTS: 5440 responses were obtained, 54.3% (n=2955) from emergency medicine and 36.9% (n=2005) from anaesthetics. All levels of doctor seniority were represented. For the primary outcome of GHQ-12 score, 44.2% (n=2405) of respondents scored >3, meeting the criteria for psychological distress. 57.3% (n=3045) had never previously provided clinical care during an infectious disease outbreak but over half of respondents felt somewhat prepared (48.6%, n=2653) or very prepared (7.6%, n=416) to provide clinical care to patients with COVID-19. However, 81.1% (n=4414) either agreed (31.1%, n=2709) or strongly agreed (31.1%, n=1705) that their personal health was at risk due to their clinical role. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that during the acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of frontline doctors working in acute care reported psychological distress as measured by the GHQ-12. Findings from this study should inform strategies to optimise preparedness and explore modifiable factors associated with increased psychological distress in the short and long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.

Can Emergency Physician Gestalt "Rule In" or "Rule Out" Acute Coronary Syndrome: Validation in a Multicenter Prospective Diagnostic Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common problem presenting to the emergency department (ED). Many decision aids and accelerated diagnostic protocols have been developed to help clinicians differentiate those needing admission from those who can be safely discharged. Some early evidence has suggested that clinician judgment or gestalt alone could be sufficient. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to externally validate whether emergency physician's gestalt could "rule in" or "rule out" acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS: We performed a multicenter prospective diagnostic accuracy study including consenting patients presenting to the ED in whom the physician suspected ACS. At the time of arrival, clinicians recorded their perceived probability of ACS using a 5-point Likert scale. The primary outcome was a diagnosis of ACS, defined as acute myocardial infarction or major adverse cardiac events within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 1,391 patients were included; 240 (17.3%) had ACS. Overall, gestalt had fair diagnostic accuracy with a C-statistic of 0.75 (95% confidence interval = 0.72 to 0.79). If ACS was "ruled out" in the 60 (4.3%) patients where clinicians perceived that the diagnosis was "definitely not" ACS, a sensitivity of 98.0% and negative predictive value of 95.0% could have been achieved. If ACS was only ruled out in patients who also had no electrocardiographic (ECG) ischemia and a normal initial cardiac troponin (cTn) concentration, 100.0% sensitivity and NPV could be achieved. However, this strategy only applied to 4.1% of patients. If patients with "probably not" ACS who had normal ECG and cTn were also ruled out (n = 418, 30.8%), sensitivity fell to 86.2% with 99.2% NPV. Using gestalt "definitely" ACS to rule in ACS gave a specificity of 98.5% and positive predictive value of 71.2%. CONCLUSION: Clinician gestalt is not sufficiently accurate or safe to either rule in or rule out ACS as a decision-making strategy. This study will enable emergency physicians to understand the limitations of our clinical judgment.