Dataset Information

Assessing COVID-19 Prevention Strategies to Permit the Safe Opening of Residential Colleges in Fall 2021.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Effective vaccines, improved testing technologies, and decreases in COVID-19 incidence prompt an examination of the choices available to residential college administrators seeking to safely resume in-person campus activities in fall 2021.

Objective

To help college administrators design and evaluate customized COVID-19 safety plans.

Design

Decision analysis using a compartmental epidemic model to optimize vaccination, testing, and other nonpharmaceutical interventions depending on decision makers' preferences, choices, and assumptions about epidemic severity and vaccine effectiveness against infection, transmission, and disease progression.

Setting

U.S. residential colleges.

Participants

Hypothetical cohort of 5000 persons (students, faculty, and staff) living and working in close proximity on campus.

Measurements

Cumulative infections over a 120-day semester.

Results

Under base-case assumptions, if 90% coverage can be attained with a vaccine that is 85% protective against infection and 25% protective against asymptomatic transmission, the model finds that campus activities can be resumed while holding cumulative cases below 5% of the population without the need for routine, asymptomatic testing. With 50% population coverage using such a vaccine, a similar cap on cumulative cases would require either daily asymptomatic testing of unvaccinated persons or a combination of less frequent testing and resumption of aggressive distancing and other nonpharmaceutical prevention policies. Colleges returning to pre-COVID-19 campus activities without either broad vaccination coverage or high-frequency testing put their campus population at risk for widespread viral transmission.

Limitation

Uncertainty in data, particularly vaccine effectiveness (preventive and transmission); no distinguishing between students and employees; and assumes limited community intermixing.

Conclusion

Vaccination coverage is the most powerful tool available to residential college administrators seeking to achieve a safe return to prepandemic operations this fall. Given the breadth of potential outcomes in the face of uncontrollable and uncertain factors, even colleges with high vaccination rates should be prepared to reinstitute or expand testing and distancing policies on short notice.

Primary funding source

National Institute on Drug Abuse.

SUBMITTER: Paltiel AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8422997 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic poses an existential threat to many US residential colleges: either they open their doors to students in September or they risk serious financial consequences. To define SARS-CoV-2 screening performance standards that would permit the safe return of students to campus for the Fall 2020 semester. Decision and cost-effectiveness analysis linked to a compartmental epidemic model to evaluate campus screening using tests of varying frequency (daily-weekly), sensitivity (70%-99%), specificity (98%-99.7%), and cost ($10-$50/test). Reproductive numbers Rt = {1.5, 2.5, 3.5} defined three epidemic scenarios, with additional infections imported via exogenous shocks. We generally adhered to US government guidance for parameterization data. A hypothetical cohort of 5000 college-age, uninfected students. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Cumulative tests, infections, and costs; daily isolation dormitory census; incremental cost-effectiveness; and budget impact. All measured over an 80-day, abbreviated semester. With Rt = 2.5, daily screening with a 70% sensitive, 98% specific test produces 85 cumulative student infections and isolation dormitory daily census averaging 108 (88% false positives). Screening every 2 (7) days nets 135 (3662) cumulative infections and daily isolation census 66 (252) with 73% (4%) false positives. Across all scenarios, test frequency exerts more influence on outcomes than test sensitivity. Cost-effectiveness analysis selects screening every {2, 1, 7} days with a 70% sensitive test as the preferred strategy for Rt = {2.5, 3.5, 1.5}, implying a screening cost of {$470, $920, $120} per student per semester. Conclusions & Relevance: Rapid, inexpensive and frequently conducted screening (even if only 70% sensitive) would be cost-effective and produce a modest number of COVID-19 infections. While the optimal screening frequency hinges on the success of behavioral interventions to reduce the base severity of transmission (Rt), this could permit the safe return of student to campus.

Project description:BackgroundExercise interventions are highly effective at preventing falls in older people living in the community. In residential aged care facilities (RACFs), however, the evidence for effectiveness is highly variable, warranting exploration of drivers of successful trials. This study aims to identify the conditions of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that are associated with reducing falls in RACFs and test whether it can explain the variability.MethodsRCTs testing exercise interventions in RACFs compared to usual care, reporting rate or risk of falls from the 2018 Cochrane Collaboration review and a search update to December 2022 were included. Two authors independently extracted and coded trial conditions and outcomes according to a theory developed from prior Intervention Component Analysis. Trial outcomes were coded as successful or unsuccessful based on point estimates for the rate or risk ratio for falls, or p value. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), utilising Boolean minimisation theory, was conducted to determine the key conditions driving trial success. A subgroup meta-analysis and the GRADE approach was applied to the final theory.ResultsEighteen trials undertaken in 11 countries with 2,287 residents were included. Participants were predominately ambulant females aged 70 to 80 with cognitive impairment. Most interventions were fully supervised or supervised at the start of the intervention. QCA identified two configurations as drivers of successful exercise falls prevention programs: (i) group exercise that is moderate or low intensity, or (ii) for independent ambulatory residents, exercise for more than 1 h per week. The combination of configuration (i) and (ii) had consistency and total coverage scores of 1, indicating all trials were explained. This combination was associated with a reduction in falls (rate ratio 0.45, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.59; risk ratio 0.66, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.82; low certainty evidence).ConclusionTo successfully reduce falls in RACFs, exercise programs should provide continuous supervised moderate-intensity group exercise. For programs that mostly include independent ambulatory residents, exercise for at least 80 min per week should be provided. As many current residents are frail, tailored exercise is likely necessary and an individualised dose may be required. Future trials should test exercise interventions for less mobile residents.

Project description:IntroductionPreventing falls is a priority for aged care providers. Research to date has focused on fall prevention strategies in single settings (e.g., residential aged care (RAC) or community settings). However, some aged care providers deliver care, including fall prevention interventions, across RAC and community settings. We conducted an umbrella review to identify what type of fall prevention interventions had the greatest impact on falls outcomes in RAC and community settings.MethodsFive databases were searched for systematic reviews of falls prevention randomised control trials in older adults living in the community or RAC. Data extracted included systematic review methods, population characteristics, intervention characteristics, setting details (RAC or community), and fall-related outcomes (falls, people who have had a fall, fall-related hospitalisations, and fall-related fractures). Review quality was appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 tool.ResultsOne-hundred and six systematic reviews were included; 63 and 19 of these stratified results by community and RAC settings respectively, the remainder looked at both settings. The most common intervention types discussed in reviews included 'exercise' (61%, n = 65), 'multifactorial' (two or more intervention types delivered together) (26%, n = 28), and 'vitamin D' (18%, n = 19). In RAC and community settings, 'exercise' interventions demonstrated the most consistent reduction in falls and people who have had a fall compared to other intervention types. 'Multifactorial' interventions were also beneficial in both settings however demonstrated more consistent reduction in falls and people who fall in RAC settings compared to community settings. 'Vitamin D' interventions may be beneficial in community-dwelling populations but not in RAC settings. It was not possible to stratify fall-related hospitalisation and fall-related fracture outcomes by setting due to limited number of RAC-specific reviews (n = 3 and 0 respectively).Conclusion'Exercise' interventions may be the most appropriate falls prevention intervention for older adults in RAC and community settings as it is beneficial for multiple fall-related outcomes (falls, fall-related fractures, and people who have had a fall). Augmenting 'exercise' interventions to become 'multifactorial' interventions may also improve the incidence of falls in both settings.

Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an existential threat to many US residential colleges; either they open their doors to students in September or they risk serious financial consequences.ObjectiveTo define severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening performance standards that would permit the safe return of students to US residential college campuses for the fall 2020 semester.Design, setting, and participantsThis analytic modeling study included a hypothetical cohort of 4990 students without SARS-CoV-2 infection and 10 with undetected, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection at the start of the semester. The decision and cost-effectiveness analyses were linked to a compartmental epidemic model to evaluate symptom-based screening and tests of varying frequency (ie, every 1, 2, 3, and 7 days), sensitivity (ie, 70%-99%), specificity (ie, 98%-99.7%), and cost (ie, $10/test-$50/test). Reproductive numbers (Rt) were 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5, defining 3 epidemic scenarios, with additional infections imported via exogenous shocks. The model assumed a symptomatic case fatality risk of 0.05% and a 30% probability that infection would eventually lead to observable COVID-19-defining symptoms in the cohort. Model projections were for an 80-day, abbreviated fall 2020 semester. This study adhered to US government guidance for parameterization data.Main outcomes and measuresCumulative tests, infections, and costs; daily isolation dormitory census; incremental cost-effectiveness; and budget impact.ResultsAt the start of the semester, the hypothetical cohort of 5000 students included 4990 (99.8%) with no SARS-CoV-2 infection and 10 (0.2%) with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Assuming an Rt of 2.5 and daily screening with 70% sensitivity, a test with 98% specificity yielded 162 cumulative student infections and a mean isolation dormitory daily census of 116, with 21 students (18%) with true-positive results. Screening every 2 days resulted in 243 cumulative infections and a mean daily isolation census of 76, with 28 students (37%) with true-positive results. Screening every 7 days resulted in 1840 cumulative infections and a mean daily isolation census of 121 students, with 108 students (90%) with true-positive results. Across all scenarios, test frequency was more strongly associated with cumulative infection than test sensitivity. This model did not identify symptom-based screening alone as sufficient to contain an outbreak under any of the scenarios we considered. Cost-effectiveness analysis selected screening with a test with 70% sensitivity every 2, 1, or 7 days as the preferred strategy for an Rt of 2.5, 3.5, or 1.5, respectively, implying screening costs of $470, $910, or $120, respectively, per student per semester.Conclusions and relevanceIn this analytic modeling study, screening every 2 days using a rapid, inexpensive, and even poorly sensitive (>70%) test, coupled with strict behavioral interventions to keep Rt less than 2.5, is estimated to maintain a controllable number of COVID-19 infections and permit the safe return of students to campus.