Protection against Omicron conferred by mRNA primary vaccine series, boosters, and prior infection

BO_SCPLOWACKGROUNDC_SCPLOWPrisons and jails are high-risk settings for Covid-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality. We evaluate protection conferred by prior infection and vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant within the California state prison system. MO_SCPLOWETHODSC_SCPLOWWe employed a test-negative design to match resident and staff cases during the Omicron wave (December 24, 2021--April 14, 2022) to controls according to a cases test-week as well as demographic, clinical, and carceral characteristics. We estimated protection against infection using conditional logistic regression, with exposure status defined by vaccination, stratified by number of mRNA doses received, and prior infection, stratified by periods before or during Delta variant predominance. RO_SCPLOWESULTSC_SCPLOWWe matched 15,783 resident and 8,539 staff cases to 180,169 resident and 90,409 staff controls. Among cases, 29.7% and 2.2% were infected before or during the emergence of the Delta variant, respectively; 30.6% and 36.3% were vaccinated with two or three doses, respectively. Estimated protection from Omicron infection for two and three doses were 14.9% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 12.3--19.7%) and 43.2% (42.2--47.4%) for those without known prior infections, 47.8% (95% CI, 46.6--52.8%) and 61.3% (95% CI, 60.7--64.8%) for those infected before the emergence of Delta, and 73.1% (95% CI, 69.8--80.1%) and 86.8% (95% CI, 82.1--92.7) for those infected during the period of Delta predominance. CO_SCPLOWONCLUSIONC_SCPLOWA third mRNA dose provided significant, additional protection over two doses, including among individuals with prior infection. Our findings suggest that vaccination should remain a priority--even in settings with high levels of transmission and prior infection.

Waning of Vaccine-Conferred Protection against SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Matched Case-Control Test-Negative Design Study in Two High-Risk Populations

To distinguish waning of vaccine responses from differential variant protection, we performed a test-negative case-control analysis during a Delta variant-dominant period in Californias prisons. We found that infection odds increased each 28-day period post-vaccination, reaching 3.4-fold (residents) to 4.7-fold (staff) increased odds of infection after 180 days.

Uptake of Covid-19 vaccines among frontline workers in California state prisons

BackgroundPrisons are high-risk environments for Covid-19. Vaccination levels among prison staff remain troublingly low - lower than levels among residents and members of the surrounding community. The situation is troubling because prison staff are a key vector for Covid-19 transmission. ObjectiveTo assess patterns and timing of staff vaccination in California state prisons and identify individual- and community-level factors associated with being unvaccinated. DesignWe calculated fractions of prison staff and incarcerated residents in California state prisons who remained unvaccinated. Adjusted analyses identified demographic, community, and peer factors associated with vaccination uptake among staff. SettingCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation prisons. ParticipantsCustody and healthcare staff who worked in direct contact with residents. Main Outcomes and MeasuresRemaining unvaccinated through June 30, 2021. ResultsA total of 26% of custody staff and 52% of healthcare staff took [≥]1 dose in the first two months of vaccine offer; uptake stagnated thereafter. By June 30, 2021, 61% of custody and 37% of healthcare staff remained unvaccinated. Remaining unvaccinated was positively associated with younger age, prior Covid-19, residing in a community with relatively low vaccination rates, and sharing shifts with co-workers who had relatively low vaccination rates. Conclusions and RelevanceVaccine uptake among prison staff in California in regular contact with incarcerated residents has plateaued at levels that pose ongoing risks--both of further outbreaks in the prisons and transmission into surrounding communities. Staff decisions to forego vaccination appear to be complex and multifactorial. Achieving safe levels of vaccine protection among frontline staff may necessitate requiring vaccination as condition of employment.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines among Incarcerated People in California State Prisons: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundPrisons and jails are high-risk settings for COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality. COVID-19 vaccines may substantially reduce these risks, but evidence is needed of their effectiveness for incarcerated people, who are confined in large, risky congregate settings. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to estimate effectiveness of mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections among incarcerated people in California prisons from December 22, 2020 through March 1, 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 status, and outcomes. We estimated vaccine effectiveness using multivariable Cox models with time-varying covariates that adjusted for resident characteristics and infection rates across prisons. FindingsAmong 60,707 residents in the cohort, 49% received at least one 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), as well as among the subset of residents who received the mRNA-1273 vaccine (71% [95% CI, 58-80%] and 96% [95% CI, 67-99%]). ConclusionsConsistent 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. FundingHorowitz Family Foundation, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Science Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Advanced Micro Devices.

Outbreaks of Covid-19 Variants in Prisons: A Mathematical Modeling Analysis of Vaccination and Re-Opening Policies

BackgroundResidents of correctional facilities have experienced disproportionately higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Covid-19-related mortality. To protect against outbreaks, many prisons and jails imposed heavy restrictions on in-person activities, which are now beginning to lift. Uncertainty surrounds the safety of these moves. Methods and FindingsWe obtained system-wide resident-day level data for the California state prison system, the nations third largest. We used the data to develop a transmission-dynamic stochastic microsimulation model that projects the impact of various policy scenarios on risks of SARS-CoV-2 infections and related hospitalization among residents after an initial infection is introduced to a prison. The policy scenarios vary according to levels of vaccine coverage, baseline immunity, resumption of activities, and use of non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., masking, physical distancing). The analyses were conducted across 5 types of prisons that differed in their residential layouts, security levels, and resident demographics. If a viral variant is introduced into a prison that has resumed pre-2020 contact levels, has moderate vaccine coverage, and has no baseline immunity, 23-74% of residents are expected to be infected over 200 days. High vaccination coverage coupled with use of non-pharmaceutical measures reduces cumulative infections to 2-54% of residents. In prisons consisting mostly of dormitory housing, even with high vaccine coverage and non-pharmaceutical interventions, resumption of in-person activities is associated with substantial risk, unless there is high baseline immunity (e.g., [≥]50%) from prior outbreaks. In prisons consisting mostly of cell housing, <10% of residents are expected to become infected, even with no baseline immunity. However, hospitalization risks are substantial in prisons that house medically vulnerable populations, even for prisons consisting mostly of cells. Risks of large outbreaks are substantially higher if there is continued introduction of infections into a prison. Some findings may not be transportable to other carceral settings, and our assumptions regarding viral variants will not be accurate for all variants. ConclusionsBalancing the benefits of resuming normal in-person activities against the risks of Covid-19 outbreaks is a difficult challenge for correctional systems. The policy choices are not strictly binary. To protect against viral variants, prisons should focus on achieving both high vaccine coverage and maintaining widespread use of non-pharmaceutical interventions. With both in place, some prisons, especially those with lower room occupancy that have already had large outbreaks, could safely resume in-person activities, while continuing testing and measures to protect the medically-vulnerable.

Covid-19 in the California State Prison System: An Observational Study of Decarceration, Ongoing Risks, and Risk Factors

BackgroundCorrectional institutions nationwide are seeking to mitigate Covid-19-related risks. ObjectiveTo quantify changes to Californias prison population since the pandemic began and identify risk factors for Covid-19 infection. DesignWe 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. SettingCalifornia state prisons (March 1-October 10, 2020). ParticipantsResidents of California state prisons. MeasurementsChanges in the incarcerated populations 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. ResultsThe 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). LimitationsInability to measure density of residents living conditions or contact networks among residents and staff. ConclusionDespite 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. Funding SourcesHorowitz Family Foundation; National Institute on Drug Abuse; National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship; Open Society Foundations.

Routine asymptomatic testing strategies for airline travel during the COVID-19 pandemic: a simulation analysis

BackgroundAirline travel has been significantly reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concern for individual risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-level transmission risk from importation. Routine viral testing strategies for COVID-19 may facilitate safe airline travel through reduction of individual and/or population-level risk, although the effectiveness and optimal design of these "test-and-travel" strategies remain unclear. MethodsWe developed a microsimulation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a cohort of airline travelers to evaluate the effectiveness of various testing strategies to reduce individual risk of infection and population-level risk of transmission. We evaluated five testing strategies in asymptomatic passengers: i) anterior nasal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) within 3 days of departure; ii) PCR within 3 days of departure and PCR 5 days after arrival; iii) rapid antigen test on the day of travel (assuming 90% of the sensitivity of PCR during active infection); iv) rapid antigen test on the day of travel and PCR 5 days after arrival; and v) PCR within 3 days of arrival alone. The travel period was defined as three days prior to the day of travel and two weeks following the day of travel, and we assumed passengers followed guidance on mask wearing during this period. The primary study outcome was cumulative number of infectious days in the cohort over the travel period (population-level transmission risk); the secondary outcome was the proportion of infectious persons detected on the day of travel (individual-level risk of infection). Sensitivity analyses were conducted. FindingsAssuming a community SARS-CoV-2 incidence of 50 daily infections, we estimated that in a cohort of 100,000 airline travelers followed over the travel period, there would be a total of 2,796 (95% UI: 2,031, 4,336) infectious days with 229 (95% UI: 170, 336) actively infectious passengers on the day of travel. The pre-travel PCR test (within 3 days prior to departure) reduced the number of infectious days by 35% (95% UI: 27, 42) and identified 88% (95% UI: 76, 94) of the actively infectious travelers on the day of flight; the addition of PCR 5 days after arrival reduced the number of infectious days by 79% (95% UI: 71, 84). The rapid antigen test on the day of travel reduced the number of infectious days by 32% (95% UI: 25, 39) and identified 87% (95% UI: 81, 92) of the actively infectious travelers; the addition of PCR 5 days after arrival reduced the number of infectious days by 70% (95% UI: 65, 75). The post-travel PCR test alone (within 3 days of landing) reduced the number of infectious days by 42% (95% UI: 31, 51). The ratio of true positives to false positives varied with the incidence of infection. The overall study conclusions were robust in sensitivity analysis. InterpretationRoutine asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 prior to travel can be an effective strategy to reduce individual risk of COVID-19 infection during travel, although post-travel testing with abbreviated quarantine is likely needed to reduce population-level transmission due to importation of infection when traveling from a high to low incidence setting.

Frequency of routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 to reduce transmissionamong workers

Abstract 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.

Healthcare worker absenteeism, child care costs, and COVID-19 school closures: a simulation analysis

BackgroundSchool closures have been enacted as a measure of mitigation during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It has been shown that school closures could cause absenteeism amongst healthcare workers with dependent children, but there remains a need for spatially granular analyses of the relationship between school closures and healthcare worker absenteeism to inform local community preparedness. MethodsWe provide national- and county-level simulations of school closures and unmet child care needs across the United States. We develop individual simulations using county-level demographic and occupational data, and model school closure effectiveness with age-structured compartmental models. We perform multivariate quasi-Poisson ecological regressions to find associations between unmet child care needs and COVID-19 vulnerability factors. ResultsAt the national level, we estimate the projected rate of unmet child care needs for healthcare worker households to range from 7.5% to 8.6%, and the effectiveness of school closures to range from 3.2% (R0 = 4) to 7.2% (R0 = 2) reduction in fewer ICU beds at peak demand. At the county-level, we find substantial variations of projected unmet child care needs and school closure effects, ranging from 1.9% to 18.3% of healthcare worker households and 5.7% to 8.8% reduction in fewer ICU beds at peak demand (R0 = 2). We find significant positive associations between estimated levels of unmet child care needs and diabetes prevalence, county rurality, and race (p < 0.05). We estimate costs of absenteeism and child care and observe from our models that an estimated 71.1% to 98.8% of counties would find it less expensive to provide child care to all healthcare workers with children than to bear the costs of healthcare worker absenteeism during school closures. ConclusionsSchool closures are projected to reduce peak ICU bed demand, but could disrupt healthcare systems through absenteeism, especially in counties that are already particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. Child care subsidies could help circumvent the ostensible tradeoff between school closures and healthcare worker absenteeism.