Dataset Information

Impact of vaccine prioritization strategies on mitigating COVID-19: an agent-based simulation study using an urban region in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Approval of novel vaccines for COVID-19 had brought hope and expectations, but not without additional challenges. One central challenge was understanding how to appropriately prioritize the use of limited supply of vaccines. This study examined the efficacy of the various vaccine prioritization strategies using the vaccination campaign underway in the U.S.

Methods

The study developed a granular agent-based simulation model for mimicking community spread of COVID-19 under various social interventions including full and partial closures, isolation and quarantine, use of face mask and contact tracing, and vaccination. The model was populated with parameters of disease natural history, as well as demographic and societal data for an urban community in the U.S. with 2.8 million residents. The model tracks daily numbers of infected, hospitalized, and deaths for all census age-groups. The model was calibrated using parameters for viral transmission and level of community circulation of individuals. Published data from the Florida COVID-19 dashboard was used to validate the model. Vaccination strategies were compared using a hypothesis test for pairwise comparisons.

Results

Three prioritization strategies were examined: a minor variant of CDC's recommendation, an age-stratified strategy, and a random strategy. The impact of vaccination was also contrasted with a no vaccination scenario. The study showed that the campaign against COVID-19 in the U.S. using vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna 1) reduced the cumulative number of infections by 10% and 2) helped the pandemic to subside below a small threshold of 100 daily new reported cases sooner by approximately a month when compared to no vaccination. A comparison of the prioritization strategies showed no significant difference in their impacts on pandemic mitigation.

Conclusions

The vaccines for COVID-19 were developed and approved much quicker than ever before. However, as per our model, the impact of vaccination on reducing cumulative infections was found to be limited (10%, as noted above). This limited impact is due to the explosive growth of infections that occurred prior to the start of vaccination, which significantly reduced the susceptible pool of the population for whom infection could be prevented. Hence, vaccination had a limited opportunity to reduce the cumulative number of infections. Another notable observation from our study is that instead of adhering strictly to a sequential prioritizing strategy, focus should perhaps be on distributing the vaccines among all eligible as quickly as possible, after providing for the most vulnerable. As much of the population worldwide is yet to be vaccinated, results from this study should aid public health decision makers in effectively allocating their limited vaccine supplies.

SUBMITTER: Tatapudi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8645225 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 2020, COVID-19 has claimed more than 300,000 deaths in the United States alone. Although nonpharmaceutical interventions were implemented by federal and state governments in the United States, these efforts have failed to contain the virus. Following the Food and Drug Administration's approval of two COVID-19 vaccines, however, the hope for the return to normalcy has been renewed. This hope rests on an unprecedented nationwide vaccine campaign, which faces many logistical challenges and is also contingent on several factors whose values are currently unknown.ObjectiveWe study the effectiveness of a nationwide vaccine campaign in response to different vaccine efficacies, the willingness of the population to be vaccinated, and the daily vaccine capacity under two different federal plans. To characterize the possible outcomes most accurately, we also account for the interactions between nonpharmaceutical interventions and vaccines through 6 scenarios that capture a range of possible impacts from nonpharmaceutical interventions.MethodsWe used large-scale, cloud-based, agent-based simulations by implementing the vaccination campaign using COVASIM, an open-source agent-based model for COVID-19 that has been used in several peer-reviewed studies and accounts for individual heterogeneity and a multiplicity of contact networks. Several modifications to the parameters and simulation logic were made to better align the model with current evidence. We chose 6 nonpharmaceutical intervention scenarios and applied the vaccination intervention following both the plan proposed by Operation Warp Speed (former Trump administration) and the plan of one million vaccines per day, proposed by the Biden administration. We accounted for unknowns in vaccine efficacies and levels of population compliance by varying both parameters. For each experiment, the cumulative infection growth was fitted to a logistic growth model, and the carrying capacities and the growth rates were recorded.ResultsFor both vaccination plans and all nonpharmaceutical intervention scenarios, the presence of the vaccine intervention considerably lowers the total number of infections when life returns to normal, even when the population compliance to vaccines is as low as 20%. We noted an unintended consequence; given the vaccine availability estimates under both federal plans and the focus on vaccinating individuals by age categories, a significant reduction in nonpharmaceutical interventions results in a counterintuitive situation in which higher vaccine compliance then leads to more total infections.ConclusionsAlthough potent, vaccines alone cannot effectively end the pandemic given the current availability estimates and the adopted vaccination strategy. Nonpharmaceutical interventions need to continue and be enforced to ensure high compliance so that the rate of immunity established by vaccination outpaces that induced by infections.

Project description:ImportanceEnsuring widespread uptake of available COVID-19 vaccinations, each with different safety and efficacy profiles, is essential to combating the unfolding pandemic.ObjectiveTo test communication interventions that may encourage the uptake of less-preferred vaccines.Design, setting, and participantsThis online survey was conducted from March 24 to 30, 2021, using a nonprobability convenience sample of Canadian citizens aged 18 years or older, with quota sampling to match 2016 Canadian Census benchmarks on age, gender, region, and language. Respondents completed a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial experiment with random assignment of brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson), information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic infection (yes or no), and information about the vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no) before being asked about their willingness to receive their assigned vaccine and their beliefs about its effectiveness.ExposuresRespondents were randomly assigned a vaccine brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson) and information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection (yes or no) and at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no).Main outcomes and measuresRespondents' self-reported likelihood of taking their assigned vaccine if offered (response categories: very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely, scaled 0-1) and their beliefs about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness (response categories: very effective, somewhat effective, not very effective, or not at all effective, scaled 0-1) were measured.ResultsA total of 2556 Canadian adults responded to the survey (median [IQR] age, 50 [34-63] years; 1339 women [52%]). The self-reported likelihood of taking an assigned AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson vaccine was higher for respondents given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06) and lower among those given information about its overall effectiveness at preventing symptomatic transmission (b, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.00), compared with those who were not given the information. Perceived effectiveness was also higher among those given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05) and lower among those given information about their assigned vaccine's overall efficacy at preventing symptomatic infection (b, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.03), compared with those who were not given this information. The interaction between these treatments was neither substantively nor statistically significant.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that providing information on the effectiveness of less-preferred vaccines at preventing death from COVID-19 is associated with more confidence in their effectiveness and less vaccine-specific hesitancy. These results can inform public health communication strategies to reduce hesitancy toward specific COVID-19 vaccines.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in homeless shelters across the US, highlighting an urgent need to identify the most effective infection control strategy to prevent future outbreaks.MethodsWe developed a microsimulation model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a homeless shelter and calibrated it to data from cross-sectional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) surveys conducted during COVID-19 outbreaks in five homeless shelters in three US cities from March 28 to April 10, 2020. We estimated the probability of averting a COVID-19 outbreak when an exposed individual is introduced into a representative homeless shelter of 250 residents and 50 staff over 30 days under different infection control strategies, including daily symptom-based screening, twice-weekly PCR testing, and universal mask wearing.ResultsThe proportion of PCR-positive residents and staff at the shelters with observed outbreaks ranged from 2.6 to 51.6%, which translated to the basic reproduction number (R0) estimates of 2.9-6.2. With moderate community incidence (~ 30 confirmed cases/1,000,000 people/day), the estimated probabilities of averting an outbreak in a low-risk (R0 = 1.5), moderate-risk (R0 = 2.9), and high-risk (R0 = 6.2) shelter were respectively 0.35, 0.13, and 0.04 for daily symptom-based screening; 0.53, 0.20, and 0.09 for twice-weekly PCR testing; 0.62, 0.27, and 0.08 for universal masking; and 0.74, 0.42, and 0.19 for these strategies in combination. The probability of averting an outbreak diminished with higher transmissibility (R0) within the simulated shelter and increasing incidence in the local community.ConclusionsIn high-risk homeless shelter environments and locations with high community incidence of COVID-19, even intensive infection control strategies (incorporating daily symptom screening, frequent PCR testing, and universal mask wearing) are unlikely to prevent outbreaks, suggesting a need for non-congregate housing arrangements for people experiencing homelessness. In lower-risk environments, combined interventions should be employed to reduce outbreak risk.