The Impact of a Place-Tailored Digital Health App Promoting Exercise Classes on African American Women's Physical Activity and Obesity: Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of smartphone apps to help people find different services raises the question of whether apps to help people find physical activity (PA) locations would help better prevent and control having overweight or obesity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to determine and quantify the potential impact of a digital health intervention for African American women prior to allocating financial resources toward implementation. METHODS: We developed our Virtual Population Obesity Prevention, agent-based model of Washington, DC, to simulate the impact of a place-tailored digital health app that provides information about free recreation center classes on PA, BMI, and overweight and obesity prevalence among African American women. RESULTS: When the app is introduced at the beginning of the simulation, with app engagement at 25% (eg, 25% [41,839/167,356] of women aware of the app; 25% [10,460/41,839] of those aware downloading the app; and 25% [2615/10,460] of those who download it receiving regular push notifications), and a 25% (25/100) baseline probability to exercise (eg, without the app), there are no statistically significant increases in PA levels or decreases in BMI or obesity prevalence over 5 years across the population. When 50% (83,678/167,356) of women are aware of the app; 58.23% (48,725/83,678) of those who are aware download it; and 55% (26,799/48,725) of those who download it receive regular push notifications, in line with existing studies on app usage, introducing the app on average increases PA and decreases weight or obesity prevalence, though the changes are not statistically significant. When app engagement increased to 75% (125,517/167,356) of women who were aware, 75% (94,138/125,517) of those who were aware downloading it, and 75% (70,603/94,138) of those who downloaded it opting into the app's push notifications, there were statistically significant changes in PA participation, minutes of PA and obesity prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that a digital health app that helps identify recreation center classes does not result in substantive population-wide health effects at lower levels of app engagement. For the app to result in statistically significant increases in PA and reductions in obesity prevalence over 5 years, there needs to be at least 75% (125,517/167,356) of women aware of the app, 75% (94,138/125,517) of those aware of the app download it, and 75% (70,603/94,138) of those who download it opt into push notifications. Nevertheless, the app cannot fully overcome lack of access to recreation centers; therefore, public health administrators as well as parks and recreation agencies might consider incorporating this type of technology into multilevel interventions that also target the built environment and other social determinants of health.

Cancer systems epidemiology: Overcoming misconceptions and integrating systems approaches into cancer research.

Patricia Mabry and coauthors discuss application of systems approaches in cancer research.

The potential epidemiologic, clinical, and economic impact of requiring schools to offer Physical Education (PE) classes in Mexico City.

BACKGROUND: Many schools have been cutting physical education (PE) classes due to budget constraints, which raises the question of whether policymakers should require schools to offer PE classes. Evidence suggests that PE classes can help address rising physical inactivity and obesity prevalence. However, it would be helpful to determine if requiring PE is cost-effective. METHODS: We developed an agent-based model of youth in Mexico City and the impact of all schools offering PE classes on changes in weight, weight-associated health conditions and the corresponding direct and indirect costs over their lifetime. RESULTS: If schools offer PE without meeting guidelines and instead followed currently observed class length and time active during class, overweight and obesity prevalence decreased by 1.3% (95% CI: 1.0%-1.6%) and was cost-effective from the third-party payer and societal perspectives ($5,058 per disability-adjusted life year [DALY] averted and $5,786/DALY averted, respectively, assuming PE cost $50.3 million). When all schools offered PE classes meeting international guidelines for PE classes, overweight and obesity prevalence decreased by 3.9% (95% CI: 3.7%-4.3%) in the cohort at the end of five years compared to no PE. Long-term, this averted 3,183 and 1,081 obesity-related health conditions and deaths, respectively and averted ≥$31.5 million in direct medical costs and ≥$39.7 million in societal costs, assuming PE classes cost ≤$50.3 million over the five-year period. PE classes could cost up to $185.5 million and $89.9 million over the course of five years and still remain cost-effective and cost saving respectively, from the societal perspective. CONCLUSION: Requiring PE in all schools could be cost-effective when PE class costs, on average, up to $10,340 per school annually. Further, the amount of time students are active during class is a driver of PE classes' value (e.g., it is cost saving when PE classes meet international guidelines) suggesting the need for specific recommendations.

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.

The impact of reducing the frequency of night feeding on infant BMI.

BACKGROUND: Teaching caregivers to respond to normal infant night awakenings in ways other than feeding is a common obesity prevention effort. Models can simulate caregiver feeding behavior while controlling for variables that are difficult to manipulate or measure in real life. METHODS: We developed a virtual infant model representing an infant with an embedded metabolism and his/her daily sleep, awakenings, and feeds from their caregiver each day as the infant aged from 6 to 12 months (recommended age to introduce solids). We then simulated different night feeding interventions and their impact on infant body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Reducing the likelihood of feeding during normal night wakings from 79% to 50% to 10% lowered infant BMI from the 84th to the 75th to the 62nd percentile by 12 months, respectively, among caregivers who did not adaptively feed (e.g., adjust portion sizes of solid foods with infant growth). Among caregivers who adaptively feed, all scenarios resulted in relatively stable BMI percentiles, and progressively reducing feeding probability by 10% each month showed the least fluctuations. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing night feeding has the potential to impact infant BMI, (e.g., 10% lower probability can reduce BMI by 20 percentile points) especially among caregivers who do not adaptively feed. IMPACT: Teaching caregivers to respond to infant night waking with other soothing behaviors besides feeding has the potential to reduce infant BMI. When reducing the likelihood of feeding during night wakings from 79% to 50% to 10%, infants dropped from the 84th BMI percentile to the 75th to the 62nd by 12 months, respectively, among caregivers who do not adaptively feed. Night-feeding interventions have a greater impact when caregivers do not adaptively feed their infant based on their growth compared to caregivers who do adaptively feed. Night-feeding interventions should be one of the several tools in a multi-component intervention for childhood obesity prevention.

Modeling Interventions to Reduce the Spread of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms Between Health Care Facilities in a Region.

Importance: Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) can spread across health care facilities in a region. Because of limited resources, certain interventions can be implemented in only some facilities; thus, decision-makers need to evaluate which interventions may be best to implement. Objective: To identify a group of target facilities and assess which MDRO intervention would be best to implement in the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County, a large regional public health collaborative in Orange County, California. Design, Setting, and Participants: An agent-based model of health care facilities was developed in 2016 to simulate the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) for 10 years starting in 2010 and to simulate the use of various MDRO interventions for 3 years starting in 2017. All health care facilities (23 hospitals, 5 long-term acute care hospitals, and 74 nursing homes) serving adult inpatients in Orange County, California, were included, and 42 target facilities were identified via network analyses. Exposures: Increasing contact precaution effectiveness, increasing interfacility communication about patients' MDRO status, and performing decolonization using antiseptic bathing soap and a nasal product in a specific group of target facilities. Main Outcomes and Measures: MRSA and CRE prevalence and number of new carriers (ie, transmission events). Results: Compared with continuing infection control measures used in Orange County as of 2017, increasing contact precaution effectiveness from 40% to 64% in 42 target facilities yielded relative reductions of 0.8% (range, 0.5%-1.1%) in MRSA prevalence and 2.4% (range, 0.8%-4.6%) in CRE prevalence in health care facilities countywide after 3 years, averting 761 new MRSA transmission events (95% CI, 756-765 events) and 166 new CRE transmission events (95% CI, 158-174 events). Increasing interfacility communication of patients' MDRO status to 80% in these target facilities produced no changes in the prevalence or transmission of MRDOs. Implementing decolonization procedures (clearance probability: 39% in hospitals, 27% in long-term acute care facilities, and 3% in nursing homes) yielded a relative reduction of 23.7% (range, 23.5%-23.9%) in MRSA prevalence, averting 3515 new transmission events (95% CI, 3509-3521 events). Increasing the effectiveness of antiseptic bathing soap to 48% yielded a relative reduction of 39.9% (range, 38.5%-41.5%) in CRE prevalence, averting 1435 new transmission events (95% CI, 1427-1442 events). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study highlight the ways in which modeling can inform design of regional interventions and suggested that decolonization would be the best strategy for the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County.

Factors Associated with Sterile Syringe Acquisition among People Who Inject Drugs in West Virginia.

BACKGROUND: Syringe services programs (SSPs) are evidence-based interventions that provide essential overdose and infectious disease prevention resources to people who inject drugs (PWID). Little research has examined factors associated with sterile syringe acquisition at SSPs among rural PWID populations. OBJECTIVES: We aim to identify factors associated with PWID in a rural county in West Virginia having recently acquired sterile syringes at an SSP. METHODS: PWID (n = 420) completed a survey that included measures related to sociodemographics, structural vulnerabilities, and substance use. We used multivariable Poisson regression with robust variance estimation to examine independent associations with sterile syringe acquisition at an SSP. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of our sample reported having recently acquired sterile syringes at an SSP. Factors associated with recent sterile syringes acquisition at an SSP included: being older (aPR [adjusted prevalence ratio]: 1.011, 95% CI: 1.003-1.019), single (aPR: 0.862, 95% CI: 0.755-0.984), experiencing food insecurity (aPR: 1.233, 95% CI: 1.062-1.431), recently injecting fentanyl (aPR: 1.178, 95% CI: 1.010-1.375) and prescription opioid pain relievers (aPR: 0.681, 95% CI: 0.551-0.842), and recent naloxone acquisition (aPR: 1.360; 95% CI: 1.178-1.569). Receptive syringe sharing was inversely associated with acquiring sterile syringes at an SSP (aPR: 0.852; 95% CI: 0.741-0.979). CONCLUSION: PWID accessing sterile syringes at an SSP was associated with several sociodemographic, structural, and substance use factors. Ensuring rural SSP operations are tailored to local PWID population-level needs is paramount to the prevention of infectious disease outbreaks and overdose fatalities.

Systematic review of the costs for vaccinators to reach vaccination sites: Incremental costs of reaching hard-to-reach populations.

INTRODUCTION: Economic evidence on how much it may cost for vaccinators to reach populations is important to plan vaccination programs. Moreover, knowing the incremental costs to reach populations that have traditionally been undervaccinated, especially those hard-to-reach who are facing supply-side barriers to vaccination, is essential to expanding immunization coverage to these populations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify estimates of costs associated with getting vaccinators to all vaccination sites. We searched PubMed and the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC) in 2019 for the following costs to vaccinators: (1) training costs; (2) labor costs, per diems, and incentives; (3) identification of vaccine beneficiary location; and (4) travel costs. We assessed if any of these costs were specific to populations that are hard-to-reach for vaccination, based on a framework for examining supply-side barriers to vaccination. RESULTS: We found 19 studies describing average vaccinator training costs at $0.67/person vaccinated or targeted (SD $0.94) and $0.10/dose delivered (SD $0.07). The average cost for vaccinator labor and incentive costs across 29 studies was $2.15/dose (SD $2.08). We identified 13 studies describing intervention costs for a vaccinator to know the location of a beneficiary, with an average cost of $19.69/person (SD $26.65), and six studies describing vaccinator travel costs, with an average cost of $0.07/dose (SD $0.03). Only eight of these studies described hard-to-reach populations for vaccination; two studies examined incremental costs per dose to reach hard-to-reach populations, which were 1.3-2 times higher than the regular costs. The incremental cost to train vaccinators was $0.02/dose, and incremental labor costs for targeting hard-to-reach populations were $0.16-$1.17/dose. CONCLUSION: Additional comparative costing studies are needed to understand the potential differential costs for vaccinators reaching the vaccination sites that serve hard-to-reach populations. This will help immunization program planners and decision-makers better allocate resources to extend vaccination programs.

Promoting, seeking, and reaching vaccination services: A systematic review of costs to immunization programs, beneficiaries, and caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the costs to increase vaccination demand among under-vaccinated populations, as well as costs incurred by beneficiaries and caregivers for reaching vaccination sites, is essential to improving vaccination coverage. However, there have not been systematic analyses documenting such costs for beneficiaries and caregivers seeking vaccination. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC) in 2019 for the costs for beneficiaries and caregivers to 1) seek and know how to access vaccination (i.e., costs to immunization programs for social mobilization and interventions to increase vaccination demand), 2) take time off from work, chores, or school for vaccination (i.e., productivity costs), and 3) travel to vaccination sites. We assessed if these costs were specific to populations that faced other non-cost barriers, based on a framework for defining hard-to-reach and hard-to-vaccinate populations for vaccination. RESULTS: We found 57 studies describing information, education, and communication (IEC) costs, social mobilization costs, and the costs of interventions to increase vaccination demand, with mean costs per dose at $0.41 (standard deviation (SD) $0.83), $18.86 (SD $50.65) and $28.23 (SD $76.09) in low-, middle-, and high-income countries, respectively. Five studies described productivity losses incurred by beneficiaries and caregivers seeking vaccination ($38.33 per person; SD $14.72; n = 3). We identified six studies on travel costs incurred by beneficiaries and caregivers attending vaccination sites ($11.25 per person; SD $9.54; n = 4). Two studies reported social mobilization costs per dose specific to hard-to-reach populations, which were 2-3.5 times higher than costs for the general population. Eight studies described barriers to vaccination among hard-to-reach populations. CONCLUSION: Social mobilization/IEC costs are well-characterized, but evidence is limited on costs incurred by beneficiaries and caregivers getting to vaccination sites. Understanding the potential incremental costs for populations facing barriers to reach vaccination sites is essential to improving vaccine program financing and planning.

Should countries switch to using five- or ten-dose rotavirus vaccines now that they are available?

INTRODUCTION: Single-dose rotavirus vaccines, which are used by a majority of countries, are some of the largest-sized vaccines in immunization programs, and have been shown to constrain supply chains and cause bottlenecks. Efforts have been made to reduce the size of the single-dose vaccines; however, with two-dose, five-dose and ten-dose options available, the question then is whether using multi-dose instead of single-dose rotavirus vaccines will improve vaccine availability. METHODS: We used HERMES-generated simulation models of the vaccine supply chains of the Republic of Benin, Mozambique, and Bihar, a state in India, to evaluate the operational and economic impact of implementing each of the nine different rotavirus vaccine presentations. RESULTS: Among single-dose rotavirus vaccines, using Rotarix RV1 MMP (multi-monodose presentation) led to the highest rotavirus vaccine availability (49-80%) and total vaccine availability (56-79%), and decreased total costs per dose administered ($0.02-$0.10) compared to using any other single-dose rotavirus vaccine. Using two-dose ROTASIIL decreased rotavirus vaccine availability by 3-6% across each supply chain compared to Rotarix RV1 MMP, the smallest single-dose vaccine. Using a five-dose rotavirus vaccine improved rotavirus vaccine availability (52-92%) and total vaccine availability (60-85%) compared to single-dose and two-dose vaccines. Further, using the ten-dose vaccine led to the highest rotavirus vaccine availability compared to all other rotavirus vaccines in both Benin and Bihar. CONCLUSION: Our results show that countries that implement five-dose or ten-dose rotavirus vaccines consistently reduce cold chain constraints and achieve higher rotavirus and total vaccine availability compared to using either single-dose or two-dose rotavirus vaccines.

A systems map of the economic considerations for vaccination: Application to hard-to-reach populations.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the economics of vaccination is essential to developing immunization strategies that can be employed successfully with limited resources, especially when vaccinating populations that are hard-to-reach. METHODS: Based on the input from interviews with 24 global experts on immunization economics, we developed a systems map of the mechanisms (i.e., necessary steps or components) involved in vaccination, and associated costs and benefits, focused at the service delivery level. We used this to identify the mechanisms that may be different for hard-to-reach populations. RESULTS: The systems map shows different mechanisms that determine whether a person may or may not get vaccinated and the potential health and economic impacts of doing so. The map is divided into two parts: 1) the costs of vaccination, representing each of the mechanisms involved in getting vaccinated (n = 23 vaccination mechanisms), their associated direct vaccination costs (n = 18 vaccination costs), and opportunity costs (n = 5 opportunity costs), 2) the impact of vaccination, representing mechanisms after vaccine delivery (n = 13 impact mechanisms), their associated health effects (n = 10 health effects for beneficiary and others), and economic benefits (n = 13 immediate and secondary economic benefits and costs). Mechanisms that, when interrupted or delayed, can result in populations becoming hard-to-reach include getting vaccines and key stakeholders (e.g., beneficiaries/caregivers, vaccinators) to a vaccination site, as well as vaccine administration at the site. CONCLUSION: Decision-makers can use this systems map to understand where steps in the vaccination process may be interrupted or weak and identify where gaps exist in the understanding of the economics of vaccination. With improved understanding of system-wide effects, this map can help decision-makers inform targeted interventions and policies to increase vaccination coverage in hard-to-reach populations.

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.

Engagement in drug treatment following nonfatal overdose among people who inject drugs in Appalachia.

BACKGROUND: Immediately after experiencing a non-fatal overdose, many people who inject drugs (PWID) engage in harm-minimizing behavior change, including engagement in drug treatment. To inform the implementation of tailored interventions designed to facilitate drug treatment engagement in rural communities, we sought to identify correlates of starting any form of drug treatment after their most recent overdose among PWID who reside in a rural county in West Virginia. METHODS: Data are from a PWID population estimation study in Cabell County, West Virginia. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify independent sociodemographic and substance use-related correlates of any form of drug treatment engagement after an overdose among 179 PWID who had overdosed in the past 6 months. RESULTS: One-third of our sample (33.0%) started any form of drug treatment in the 30 days following their most recent overdose. Factors associated with engaging in drug treatment included: recent buprenorphine or Suboxone injection (aOR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.15, 4.96), someone calling 911 after their most recent overdose (aOR: 3.29, 95% CI: 1.63, 6.65), and older age (aOR per year of age: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91, 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that contact with emergency personnel after an overdose may represent an important opportunity to link PWID to drug treatment. The implementation of response teams trained in linking PWID to the services they require and helping persons navigate treatment systems maybe be a valuable intervention to reduce the harms of the opioid overdose crisis.

The Benefits of Vaccinating With the First Available COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine.

INTRODUCTION: During a pandemic, there are many situations in which the first available vaccines may not have as high effectiveness as vaccines that are still under development or vaccines that are not yet ready for distribution, raising the question of whether it is better to go with what is available now or wait. METHODS: In 2020, the team developed a computational model that represents the U.S. population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread, and vaccines with different possible efficacies (to prevent infection or to reduce severe disease) and vaccination timings to estimate the clinical and economic value of vaccination. RESULTS: Except for a limited number of situations, mainly early on in a pandemic and for a vaccine that prevents infection, when an initial vaccine is available, waiting for a vaccine with a higher efficacy results in additional hospitalizations and costs over the course of the pandemic. For example, if a vaccine with a 50% efficacy in preventing infection becomes available when 10% of the population has already been infected, waiting until 40% of the population are infected for a vaccine with 80% efficacy in preventing infection results in 15.6 million additional cases and 1.5 million additional hospitalizations, costing $20.6 billion more in direct medical costs and $12.4 billion more in productivity losses. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there are relatively few situations in which it is worth foregoing the first COVID-19 vaccine available in favor of a vaccine that becomes available later on in the pandemic even if the latter vaccine has a substantially higher efficacy.

Estimated number of N95 respirators needed for healthcare workers in acute-care hospitals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Due to shortages of N95 respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is necessary to estimate the number of N95s required for healthcare workers (HCWs) to inform manufacturing targets and resource allocation. METHODS: We developed a model to determine the number of N95 respirators needed for HCWs both in a single acute-care hospital and the United States. RESULTS: For an acute-care hospital with 400 all-cause monthly admissions, the number of N95 respirators needed to manage COVID-19 patients admitted during a month ranges from 113 (95% interpercentile range [IPR], 50-229) if 0.5% of admissions are COVID-19 patients to 22,101 (95% IPR, 5,904-25,881) if 100% of admissions are COVID-19 patients (assuming single use per respirator, and 10 encounters between HCWs and each COVID-19 patient per day). The number of N95s needed decreases to a range of 22 (95% IPR, 10-43) to 4,445 (95% IPR, 1,975-8,684) if each N95 is used for 5 patient encounters. Varying monthly all-cause admissions to 2,000 requires 6,645-13,404 respirators with a 60% COVID-19 admission prevalence, 10 HCW-patient encounters, and reusing N95s 5-10 times. Nationally, the number of N95 respirators needed over the course of the pandemic ranges from 86 million (95% IPR, 37.1-200.6 million) to 1.6 billion (95% IPR, 0.7-3.6 billion) as 5%-90% of the population is exposed (single-use). This number ranges from 17.4 million (95% IPR, 7.3-41 million) to 312.3 million (95% IPR, 131.5-737.3 million) using each respirator for 5 encounters. CONCLUSIONS: We quantified the number of N95 respirators needed for a given acute-care hospital and nationally during the COVID-19 pandemic under varying conditions.

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.

Potential Clinical and Economic Value of Norovirus Vaccination in the Community Setting.

INTRODUCTION: With norovirus vaccine candidates currently under development, now is the time to identify the vaccine characteristics and implementation thresholds at which vaccination becomes cost effective and cost saving in a community setting. METHODS: In 2020, a norovirus transmission, clinical, and economics computational simulation model representing different U.S. population segments was developed to simulate the spread of norovirus and the potential impact of vaccinating children aged <5 years and older adults (aged ≥65 years). RESULTS: Compared with no vaccination, vaccinating preschool-aged children averted 8%-72% of symptomatic norovirus cases in a community, whereas vaccinating older adults averted 2%-29% of symptomatic cases (varying with vaccine efficacy [25%-75%] and vaccination coverage [10%-80%]). Vaccination with a 25% vaccine efficacy was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ≤$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year) when vaccination cost ≤$445 and cost saving at ≤$370 when vaccinating preschool-aged children and ≤$42 and ≤$30, respectively, when vaccinating older adults. With a 50% vaccine efficacy, vaccination was cost effective when it cost ≤$1,190 and cost saving at ≤$930 when vaccinating preschool-aged children and ≤$110 and ≤$64, respectively, when vaccinating older adults. These cost thresholds (cost effective and cost saving, respectively) further increased with a 75% vaccine efficacy to ≤$1,600 and ≤$1,300 for preschool-aged children and ≤$165 and ≤$100 for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: This study outlines thresholds at which a norovirus vaccine would be cost effective and cost saving in the community when vaccinating children aged <5 years and older adults. Establishing these thresholds can help provide decision makers with targets to consider when developing and implementing a norovirus vaccine.

Vaccine Efficacy Needed for a COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine to Prevent or Stop an Epidemic as the Sole Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Given the continuing COVID-19 pandemic and much of the U.S. implementing social distancing owing to the lack of alternatives, there has been a push to develop a vaccine to eliminate the need for social distancing. METHODS: In 2020, the team developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus and vaccination. RESULTS: Simulation experiments revealed that to prevent an epidemic (reduce the peak by >99%), the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when vaccination coverage is 100% (reproduction number=2.5-3.5). This vaccine efficacy threshold rises to 70% when coverage drops to 75% and up to 80% when coverage drops to 60% when reproduction number is 2.5, rising to 80% when coverage drops to 75% when the reproduction number is 3.5. To extinguish an ongoing epidemic, the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when coverage is 100% and at least 80% when coverage drops to 75% to reduce the peak by 85%-86%, 61%-62%, and 32% when vaccination occurs after 5%, 15%, and 30% of the population, respectively, have already been exposed to COVID-19 coronavirus. A vaccine with an efficacy between 60% and 80% could still obviate the need for other measures under certain circumstances such as much higher, and in some cases, potentially unachievable, vaccination coverages. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70% to prevent an epidemic and of at least 80% to largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing).

How Efficacious Must a COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine be to Prevent or Stop an Epidemic by Itself.

BACKGROUND: Given the continuing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and much of the U.S. implementing social distancing due to the lack of alternatives, there has been a push to develop a vaccine to eliminate the need for social distancing. METHODS: In 2020, we developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus and vaccination. RESULTS: Simulation experiments revealed that when vaccine efficacy exceeded 70%, coverage exceeded 60%, and vaccination occurred on day 1, the attack rate dropped to 22% with daily cases not exceeding 3.2 million (reproductive rate, R0, 2.5). When R0 was 3.5, the attack rate dropped to 41% with daily cases not exceeding 14.4 million. Increasing coverage to 75% when vaccination occurred by day 90 resulted in 5% attack rate and daily cases not exceeding 258,029when R0 was 2.5 and a 26% attack rate and maximum daily cases of 22.6 million when R0 was 3.5. When vaccination did not occur until day 180, coverage (i.e., those vaccinated plus those otherwise immune) had to reach 100%. A vaccine with an efficacy between 40% and 70% could still obviate the need for other measures under certain circumstances such as much higher, and in some cases, potentially unachievable, vaccination coverages. CONCLUSION: Our study found that to either prevent or largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing), the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70%.

The Potential Health Care Costs And Resource Use Associated With COVID-19 In The United States.

With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, one of the major concerns is the direct medical cost and resource use burden imposed on the US health care system. We developed a Monte Carlo simulation model that represented the US population and what could happen to each person who got infected. We estimated resource use and direct medical costs per symptomatic infection and at the national level, with various "attack rates" (infection rates), to understand the potential economic benefits of reducing the burden of the disease. A single symptomatic COVID-19 case could incur a median direct medical cost of $3,045 during the course of the infection alone. If 80 percent of the US population were to get infected, the result could be a median of 44.6 million hospitalizations, 10.7 million intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, 6.5 million patients requiring a ventilator, 249.5 million hospital bed days, and $654.0 billion in direct medical costs over the course of the pandemic. If 20 percent of the US population were to get infected, there could be a median of 11.2 million hospitalizations, 2.7 million ICU admissions, 1.6 million patients requiring a ventilator, 62.3 million hospital bed days, and $163.4 billion in direct medical costs over the course of the pandemic.