Dataset Information

India's pragmatic vaccination strategy against COVID-19: a mathematical modelling-based analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate the impact of targeted vaccination strategies on morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19, as well as on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2, in India.

Design

Mathematical modelling.

Settings

Indian epidemic of COVID-19 and vulnerable population.

Data sources

Country-specific and age-segregated pattern of social contact, case fatality rate and demographic data obtained from peer-reviewed literature and public domain.

Model

An age-structured dynamical model describing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in India incorporating uncertainty in natural history parameters was constructed.

Interventions

Comparison of different vaccine strategies by targeting priority groups such as keyworkers including healthcare professionals, individuals with comorbidities (24-60 years old) and all above 60.

Main outcome measures

Incidence reduction and averted deaths in different scenarios, assuming that the current restrictions are fully lifted as vaccination is implemented.

Results

The priority groups together account for about 18% of India's population. An infection-preventing vaccine with 60% efficacy covering all these groups would reduce peak symptomatic incidence by 20.6% (95% uncertainty intervals (UI) 16.7-25.4) and cumulative mortality by 29.7% (95% CrI 25.8-33.8). A similar vaccine with ability to prevent symptoms (but not infection) will reduce peak incidence of symptomatic cases by 10.4% (95% CrI 8.4-13.0) and cumulative mortality by 32.9% (95% CrI 28.6-37.3). In the event of insufficient vaccine supply to cover all priority groups, model projections suggest that after keyworkers, vaccine strategy should prioritise all who are >60 and subsequently individuals with comorbidities. In settings with weakest transmission, such as sparsely populated rural areas, those with comorbidities should be prioritised after keyworkers.

Conclusions

An appropriately targeted vaccination strategy would witness substantial mitigation of impact of COVID-19 in a country like India with wide heterogeneity. 'Smart vaccination', based on public health considerations, rather than mass vaccination, appears prudent.

SUBMITTER: Mandal S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8257292 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe dynamics of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 are complicated by age-dependent factors, changing levels of infection, and the relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) as the perceived risk declines, necessitating the use of mathematical models. Our aims were to use epidemiological data from the UK together with estimates of vaccine efficacy to predict the possible long-term dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 under the planned vaccine rollout.MethodsIn this study, we used a mathematical model structured by age and UK region, fitted to a range of epidemiological data in the UK, which incorporated the planned rollout of a two-dose vaccination programme (doses 12 weeks apart, protection onset 14 days after vaccination). We assumed default vaccine uptake of 95% in those aged 80 years and older, 85% in those aged 50-79 years, and 75% in those aged 18-49 years, and then varied uptake optimistically and pessimistically. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was assumed to be 88% on the basis of Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines being administered in the UK, and protection against infection was varied from 0% to 85%. We considered the combined interaction of the UK vaccination programme with multiple potential future relaxations (or removals) of NPIs, to predict the reproduction number (R) and pattern of daily deaths and hospital admissions due to COVID-19 from January, 2021, to January, 2024.FindingsWe estimate that vaccination alone is insufficient to contain the outbreak. In the absence of NPIs, even with our most optimistic assumption that the vaccine will prevent 85% of infections, we estimate R to be 1·58 (95% credible intervals [CI] 1·36-1·84) once all eligible adults have been offered both doses of the vaccine. Under the default uptake scenario, removal of all NPIs once the vaccination programme is complete is predicted to lead to 21 400 deaths (95% CI 1400-55 100) due to COVID-19 for a vaccine that prevents 85% of infections, although this number increases to 96 700 deaths (51 800-173 200) if the vaccine only prevents 60% of infections. Although vaccination substantially reduces total deaths, it only provides partial protection for the individual; we estimate that, for the default uptake scenario and 60% protection against infection, 48·3% (95% CI 48·1-48·5) and 16·0% (15·7-16·3) of deaths will be in individuals who have received one or two doses of the vaccine, respectively.InterpretationFor all vaccination scenarios we investigated, our predictions highlight the risks associated with early or rapid relaxation of NPIs. Although novel vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 offer a potential exit strategy for the pandemic, success is highly contingent on the precise vaccine properties and population uptake, both of which need to be carefully monitored.FundingNational Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, and UK Research and Innovation.

Project description:BackgroundThe first COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial setting was administered on Dec 8, 2020. To ensure global vaccine equity, vaccine targets were set by the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) Facility and WHO. However, due to vaccine shortfalls, these targets were not achieved by the end of 2021. We aimed to quantify the global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination programmes.MethodsA mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission and vaccination was separately fit to reported COVID-19 mortality and all-cause excess mortality in 185 countries and territories. The impact of COVID-19 vaccination programmes was determined by estimating the additional lives lost if no vaccines had been distributed. We also estimated the additional deaths that would have been averted had the vaccination coverage targets of 20% set by COVAX and 40% set by WHO been achieved by the end of 2021.FindingsBased on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7-15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19·8 million (95% Crl 19·1-20·4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic, representing a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (19·8 million of 31·4 million) during the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. In COVAX Advance Market Commitment countries, we estimated that 41% of excess mortality (7·4 million [95% Crl 6·8-7·7] of 17·9 million deaths) was averted. In low-income countries, we estimated that an additional 45% (95% CrI 42-49) of deaths could have been averted had the 20% vaccination coverage target set by COVAX been met by each country, and that an additional 111% (105-118) of deaths could have been averted had the 40% target set by WHO been met by each country by the end of 2021.InterpretationCOVID-19 vaccination has substantially altered the course of the pandemic, saving tens of millions of lives globally. However, inadequate access to vaccines in low-income countries has limited the impact in these settings, reinforcing the need for global vaccine equity and coverage.FundingSchmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust; WHO; UK Medical Research Council; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; National Institute for Health Research; and Community Jameel.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities must decide which groups to prioritise for vaccination in a shifting social-epidemiological landscape in which the success of large-scale non-pharmaceutical interventions requires broad social acceptance. We aimed to compare projected COVID-19 mortality under four different strategies for the prioritisation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.MethodsWe developed a coupled social-epidemiological model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in which social and epidemiological dynamics interact with one another. We modelled how population adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions responds to case incidence. In the model, schools and workplaces are also closed and reopened on the basis of reported cases. The model was parameterised with data on COVID-19 cases and mortality, SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, population mobility, and demography from Ontario, Canada (population 14·5 million). Disease progression parameters came from the SARS-CoV-2 epidemiological literature. We assumed a vaccine with 75% efficacy against disease and transmissibility. We compared vaccinating those aged 60 years and older first (oldest-first strategy), vaccinating those younger than 20 years first (youngest-first strategy), vaccinating uniformly by age (uniform strategy), and a novel contact-based strategy. The latter three strategies interrupt transmission, whereas the first targets a vulnerable group to reduce disease. Vaccination rates ranged from 0·5% to 5% of the population per week, beginning on either Jan 1 or Sept 1, 2021.FindingsCase notifications, non-pharmaceutical intervention adherence, and lockdown undergo successive waves that interact with the timing of the vaccine programme to determine the relative effectiveness of the four strategies. Transmission-interrupting strategies become relatively more effective with time as herd immunity builds. The model predicts that, in the absence of vaccination, 72 000 deaths (95% credible interval 40 000-122 000) would occur in Ontario from Jan 1, 2021, to March 14, 2025, and at a vaccination rate of 1·5% of the population per week, the oldest-first strategy would reduce COVID-19 mortality by 90·8% on average (followed by 89·5% in the uniform, 88·9% in the contact-based, and 88·2% in the youngest-first strategies). 60 000 deaths (31 000-108 000) would occur from Sept 1, 2021, to March 14, 2025, in the absence of vaccination, and the contact-based strategy would reduce COVID-19 mortality by 92·6% on average (followed by 92·1% in the uniform, 91·0% in the oldest-first, and 88·3% in the youngest-first strategies) at a vaccination rate of 1·5% of the population per week.InterpretationThe most effective vaccination strategy for reducing mortality due to COVID-19 depends on the time course of the pandemic in the population. For later vaccination start dates, use of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to interrupt transmission might prevent more deaths than prioritising vulnerable age groups.FundingOntario Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

Project description:BackgroundResidents of prisons have experienced disproportionate COVID-19-related health harms. To control outbreaks, many prisons in the USA restricted in-person activities, which are now resuming even as viral variants proliferate. This study aims to use mathematical modelling to assess the risks and harms of COVID-19 outbreaks in prisons under a range of policies, including resumption of activities.MethodsWe obtained daily resident-level data for all California state prisons from Jan 1, 2020, to May 15, 2021, describing prison layouts, housing status, sociodemographic and health characteristics, participation in activities, and COVID-19 testing, infection, and vaccination status. We developed a transmission-dynamic stochastic microsimulation parameterised by the California data and published literature. After an initial infection is introduced to a prison, the model evaluates the effect of various policy scenarios on infections and hospitalisations over 200 days. Scenarios vary by vaccine coverage, baseline immunity (0%, 25%, or 50%), resumption of activities, and use of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that reduce transmission by 75%. We simulated five prison types that differ by residential layout and demographics, and estimated outcomes with and without repeated infection introductions over the 200 days.FindingsIf a viral variant is introduced into a prison that has resumed pre-2020 contact levels, has moderate vaccine coverage (ranging from 36% to 76% among residents, dependent on age, with 40% coverage for staff), and has no baseline immunity, 23-74% of residents are expected to be infected over 200 days. High vaccination coverage (90%) coupled with NPIs reduces cumulative infections to 2-54%. Even in prisons with low room occupancies (ie, no more than two occupants) and low levels of cumulative infections (ie, <10%), hospitalisation risks are substantial when these prisons house medically vulnerable populations. Risks of large outbreaks (>20% of residents infected) are substantially higher if infections are repeatedly introduced.InterpretationBalancing benefits of resuming activities against risks of outbreaks presents challenging trade-offs. After achieving high vaccine coverage, prisons with mostly one-to-two-person cells that have higher baseline immunity from previous outbreaks can resume in-person activities with low risk of a widespread new outbreak, provided they maintain widespread NPIs, continue testing, and take measures to protect the medically vulnerable.FundingHorowitz Family Foundation, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Science Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Advanced Micro Devices.

Project description:In this paper, we develop a mathematical model for the spread and control of the coronavirus disease. An outbreak of COVID-19 has led to more than one million confirmed cases as of April 3rd, 2020. Understanding the early spread dynamics of the infection and evaluating the effectiveness of control measures is crucial for assessing the potential for sustained transmission to occur in new areas. Combining a mathematical model of severe COVID-19 spread with four datasets from within and outside of Wuhan, China; it is estimated how spread in Wuhan varied between January and February 2020. It is used these estimates to assess the potential for sustained human-to-human spread to occur in locations outside Wuhan if disease holders were introduced. It is combined SEIR framework model with data on cases of COVID-19 in China and International cases that originated in Wuhan to estimate how spread had varied over time during January and February 2020. Based on these estimates, it is calculated the probability that freshly introduced cases might produce outbreaks in other regions. Also, it is calculated approximately the median day by day basic reproduction number in Wuhan, refused from 2·45 (95% CI: 1·16-4·87) one week before travel restrictions were introduced on Jan 23rd, 2020, to 1.05 (0·42-2·40) one week after. Based on our estimates of, presumptuous SARS approximating disparity, it is computed that in locations with a similar spread potential to Wuhan in near the beginning of January, some time ago there are at least four independently set up cases, there is a more than fifty percent chance the infection will found within those inhabitants. COVID-19 spreading probably refused in Wuhan during delayed January 2020, corresponding with the prologue of voyage control channels. As more cases arrive in international locations with similar spread potential to Wuhan, before these organize measures, it is likely many chains of spread will fail to create initially but might lead to innovative outbreaks ultimately.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether a single optimal vaccination strategy exists across countries to deal with a future influenza pandemic by comparing the cost effectiveness of different strategies in various pandemic scenarios for three European countries.DesignEconomic and epidemic modelling study.SettingsGeneral populations in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.Data sourcesCountry specific patterns of social contact and demographic data.ModelAn age structured susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered transmission model that describes how an influenza A virus will spread in the populations of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.InterventionsComparison of four vaccination strategies: no vaccination, blanket vaccination, vaccination of elderly people (≥ 65 years), and vaccination of high transmitters (5-19 years). The four strategies were evaluated for scenarios in which a vaccine became available early or at the peak of the pandemic, and in which either everyone was initially susceptible or older age groups had pre-existing immunity.Main outcome measureCost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.ResultsAll vaccination strategies were cost effective (incremental cost per QALY gained, comparing intervention with non-intervention). In scenarios where the vaccine became available at the peak of the pandemic and there was pre-existing immunity among elderly people the incremental cost effectiveness ratios for vaccinating high transmitters were €7325 (£5815; $10,470) per QALY gained for Germany, €10,216 per QALY gained for the Netherlands, and €7280 per QALY gained for the United Kingdom. The most cost effective strategy not only differed across the pandemic scenarios but also between countries. Specifically, when the vaccine was available early in the pandemic and there was no pre-existing immunity, in Germany it would be most cost effective to vaccinate elderly people ( €940 per QALY gained), whereas it would be most cost effective to vaccinate high transmitters in both the Netherlands (€525 per QALY gained) and the United Kingdom (€163 per QALY gained). This difference in optimal strategies was due to differences in the demographic characteristics of the countries: Germany has a significantly higher proportion of elderly people compared with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.ConclusionsNo single vaccination strategy was most cost effective across countries. With aging populations, pre-existing immunity in particular could be of crucial importance for the cost effectiveness of options to mitigate a future influenza pandemic.

Project description:Background & objectivesIn the context of India's ongoing resurgence of COVID-19 (second wave since mid-February 2021, following the subsiding of the first wave in September 2020), there has been increasing speculation on the possibility of a future third wave of infection, posing a burden on the healthcare system. Using simple mathematical models of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, this study examined the conditions under which a serious third wave could occur.MethodsUsing a deterministic, compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, four potential mechanisms for a third wave were examined: (i) waning immunity restores previously exposed individuals to a susceptible state, (ii) emergence of a new viral variant that is capable of escaping immunity to previously circulating strains, (iii) emergence of a new viral variant that is more transmissible than the previously circulating strains, and (iv) release of current lockdowns affording fresh opportunities for transmission.ResultsImmune-mediated mechanisms (waning immunity, or viral evolution for immune escape) are unlikely to drive a severe third wave if acting on their own, unless such mechanisms lead to a complete loss of protection among those previously exposed. Likewise, a new, more transmissible variant would have to exceed a high threshold (R0>4.5) to cause a third wave on its own. However, plausible mechanisms for a third wave include: (i) a new variant that is more transmissible and at the same time capable of escaping prior immunity, and (ii) lockdowns that are highly effective in limiting transmission and subsequently released. In both cases, any third wave seems unlikely to be as severe as the second wave. Rapid scale-up of vaccination efforts could play an important role in mitigating these and future waves of the disease.Interpretation & conclusionsThis study demonstrates plausible mechanisms by which a substantial third wave could occur, while also illustrating that it is unlikely for any such resurgence to be as large as the second wave. Model projections are, however, subject to several uncertainties, and it remains important to scale up vaccination coverage to mitigate against any eventuality. Preparedness planning for any potential future wave will benefit by drawing upon the projected numbers based on the present modelling exercise.