RESUMO
The impact of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness is not well understood. We compared longitudinal viral shedding dynamics in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated adults. SARS-CoV-2-infected adults were enrolled within 5 days of symptom onset and nasal specimens were self-collected daily for two weeks and intermittently for an additional two weeks. SARS-CoV-2 RNA load and infectious virus were analyzed relative to symptom onset stratified by vaccination status. We tested 1080 nasal specimens from 52 unvaccinated adults enrolled in the pre-Delta period and 32 fully vaccinated adults with predominantly Delta infections. While we observed no differences by vaccination status in maximum RNA levels, maximum infectious titers and the median duration of viral RNA shedding, the rate of decay from the maximum RNA load was faster among vaccinated; maximum infectious titers and maximum RNA levels were highly correlated. Furthermore, amongst participants with infectious virus, median duration of infectious virus detection was reduced from 7.5 days (IQR: 6.0-9.0) in unvaccinated participants to 6 days (IQR: 5.0-8.0) in those vaccinated (P=0.02). Accordingly, the odds of shedding infectious virus from days 6 to 12 post-onset were lower among vaccinated participants than unvaccinated participants (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.19-0.89). These results indicate that vaccination had reduced the probability of shedding infectious virus after 5 days from symptom onset. Significance statementWe present longitudinal data on the magnitude, duration and decay rate of viral RNA and the magnitude and duration of infectious virus in nasal specimens from vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. On average, vaccinated participants (infected with the highly transmissible Delta variant) showed a lower probability of having infectious virus after 5 days of symptoms compared to unvaccinated participants (infected with mostly pre-delta viral lineages), even though both groups had a similar magnitude of infectious virus at or near the peak. These data help improve our understanding of the duration of the infectious period when infection occurs following vaccination and serves as a reference for future studies of shedding dynamics following infections with novel variants of concern.
RESUMO
ImportanceDespite widespread vaccination against COVID-19 in the United States, there are limited empirical data quantifying the public health impact in the population. ObjectiveTo estimate the number of cases of COVID-19 averted due to COVID-19 vaccination Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe California Department of Public Health (CDPH) provided person-level data on COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 vaccine administration. To estimate the number of COVID-19 cases that would have occurred in the vaccine era in absence of vaccination, we applied a statistical model that estimated the relationship of COVID-19 cases in the pre-vaccine era between the unvaccinated age group (<12 years) and vaccine-eligible groups ([≥]12 years) to COVID-19 case data after the start of vaccination. The primary study outcome was the difference between predicted number of COVID-19 cases in absence of vaccination and observed COVID-19 cases with vaccination. As a sensitivity analysis, we developed a second independent model that estimated the number of vaccine-averted COVID-19 cases by applying published data on vaccine effectiveness to data on COVID-19 vaccine administration and estimated risk of COVID-19 over time. InterventionCOVID-19 vaccination Main Outcomes and MeasuresCOVID-19 cases ResultsThere were 4,585,248 confirmed COVID-19 cases in California from January 1, 2020 to October 16, 2021, during which 27,164,680 vaccine-eligible individuals [≥]12 years were reported to have received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine in the vaccine era (79.5% of the eligible population). We estimated that 1,523,500 [95% prediction interval (976,800-2,230,800)] COVID-19 cases were averted and there was a 34% [95% prediction interval (25-43)] reduction in cases due to vaccination in the primary model. Approximately 66% of total cases averted occurred after the delta variant became the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in California. Our alternative model identified comparable findings. Conclusions and RelevanceThis study provides robust evidence on the public health impact of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States and further supports the urgency for continued vaccination. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSHow many COVID-19 cases have been prevented by COVID-19 vaccination in California? FindingsIn this empirical analysis of California using data from the Department of Public Health, we estimated that COVID-19 vaccination has prevented over 1.5 million COVID-19 cases from the introduction of vaccination through October 16, 2021. MeaningThese findings support that COVID-19 vaccination had a large public health impact in California in terms of averted cases of COVID-19 and can be generalized across the United States.
RESUMO
1COVID-19 has caused tremendous death and suffering since it first emerged in 2019. In response, models were developed to help predict the course of various disease metrics, and these models have been relied upon to help guide public health policy. Here we present a method called COVIDNearTerm to "forecast" hospitalizations in the short term, two to four weeks from the time of prediction. COVIDNearTerm is based on an autoregressive model and utilizes a parametric bootstrap approach to make predictions. We evaluated COVIDNearTerm on San Francisco Bay Area hospitalizations and compared it to models from the California COVID Assessment Tool (CalCAT). We found that that COVIDNearTerm pre-dictions were more accurate than the CalCAT ensemble predictions for all comparisons and any CalCAT component for a majority of comparisons. For instance, at the county level our 14-day hospitalization median absolute percentage errors ranged from 16% to 36%. For those same comparisons the CalCAT ensemble errors were between 30% and 59%. COVIDNearT-erm is also easier to use than some other methods. It requires only previous hospitalization data and there is an open source R package that implements the algorithm.
RESUMO
ObjectiveTo compare intention to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race-ethnicity, to identify perceptional factors that may mediate the association between race-ethnicity and intention to receive the vaccine, and to identify the demographic and perceptional factors most strongly predictive of intention to receive a vaccine. DesignCross-sectional survey conducted from November, 2020 to January, 2021, nested within two longitudinal cohort studies of prevalence and incidence of SARS CoV-2 among the general population and healthcare workers. Study Cohort3,161 participants in the Track COVID cohort (a population-based sample of adults) and 1,803 participants in the CHART Study cohort (a cohort of employees at three large medical centers). ResultsRates of high vaccine willingness were significantly lower among Black (45.3%), Latinx (62.5%), Asian (65%), multi-racial (67.2%), and other race (61.0%) respondents than among white respondents (77.6%). Black, Latinx, and Asian respondents were significantly more likely than white respondents to endorse reasons to not get vaccinated, especially lack of trust. Participants motivations and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination only partially explained racial-ethnic differences in vaccination willingness. Being a health worker in the CHART cohort and concern about a rushed government vaccine approval process were the two most important factors predicting vaccination intention. ConclusionsSpecial efforts are required to reach historically marginalized racial-ethnic communities to support informed decision-making about COVID-19 vaccination. These campaigns must acknowledge the history of racism in biomedical research and health care delivery that has degraded the trustworthiness of health and medical science institutions among non-white population and may continue to undermine confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.
RESUMO
A key public health question during any disease outbreak when limited vaccine is available is who should be prioritized for early vaccination. Most vaccine prioritization analyses only consider variation in risk of infection and death by a single risk factor, such as age. We provide a more granular approach with stratification by demographics, risk factors, and location. We use this approach to compare the impact of different COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies on COVID-19 cases, deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over the first 6 months of vaccine rollout, using California as a case example. We estimate the proportion of cases, deaths and DALYs averted relative to no vaccination for strategies prioritizing vaccination by a single risk factor and by multiple risk factors (e.g. age, location). We find that age-based targeting averts the most deaths (62% for 5 million individuals vaccinated) and DALYs (38%) of strategies targeting by a single risk factor and targeting essential workers averts the least deaths (31%) and DALYs (24%) over the first 6 months of rollout. However, targeting by two or more risk factors simultaneously averts up to 40% more DALYs. Our findings highlight the potential value of multiple-risk-factor targeting of vaccination against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
The current COVID-19 pandemic has spurred concern about what interventions may be effective at reducing transmission. The city and county of San Francisco imposed a shelter-in-place order in March 2020, followed by use of a contact tracing program and a policy requiring use of cloth face masks. We used statistical estimation and simulation to estimate the effectiveness of these interventions in San Francisco. We estimated that self-isolation and other practices beginning at the time of San Franciscos shelter-in-place order reduced the effective reproduction number of COVID-19 by 35.4% (95% CI, -20.1%-81.4%). We estimated the effect of contact tracing on the effective reproduction number to be a reduction of approximately 44% times the fraction of cases that are detected, which may be modest if the detection rate is low. We estimated the impact of cloth mask adoption on reproduction number to be approximately 8.6%, and note that the benefit of mask adoption may be substantially greater for essential workers and other vulnerable populations, residents return to circulating outside the home more often. We estimated the effect of those interventions on incidence by simulating counterfactual scenarios in which contact tracing was not adopted, cloth masks were not adopted, and neither contact tracing nor cloth masks was adopted, and found increases in case counts that were modest, but relatively larger than the effects on reproduction numbers. These estimates and model results suggest that testing coverage and timing of testing and contact tracing may be important, and that modest effects on reproduction numbers can nonetheless cause substantial effects on case counts over time.
