Dataset Information

Effective mathematical modelling of health passes during a pandemic.

ABSTRACT: We study the impact on the epidemiological dynamics of a class of restrictive measures that are aimed at reducing the number of contacts of individuals who have a higher risk of being infected with a transmittable disease. Such measures are currently either implemented or at least discussed in numerous countries worldwide to ward off a potential new wave of COVID-19. They come in the form of Health Passes (HP), which grant full access to public life only to individuals with a certificate that proves that they have either been fully vaccinated, have recovered from a previous infection or have recently tested negative to SARS-Cov-2. We develop both a compartmental model as well as an epidemic Renormalisation Group approach, which is capable of describing the dynamics over a longer period of time, notably an entire epidemiological wave. Introducing different versions of HPs in this model, we are capable of providing quantitative estimates on the effectiveness of the underlying measures as a function of the fraction of the population that is vaccinated and the vaccination rate. We apply our models to the latest COVID-19 wave in several European countries, notably Germany and Austria, which validate our theoretical findings.

SUBMITTER: Hohenegger S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9049016 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effective mathematical modelling of health passes during a pandemic.

Hohenegger Stefan S Cacciapaglia Giacomo G Sannino Francesco F

Scientific reports 20220428 1

We study the impact on the epidemiological dynamics of a class of restrictive measures that are aimed at reducing the number of contacts of individuals who have a higher risk of being infected with a transmittable disease. Such measures are currently either implemented or at least discussed in numerous countries worldwide to ward off a potential new wave of COVID-19. They come in the form of Health Passes (HP), which grant full access to public life only to individuals with a certificate that pr ...[more]

PMID: 35484143

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare quantitatively different recommended goals for cholesterol-lowering treatment in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).DesignOutcomes at pretreatment low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations from 2 to 5 mmol/L and 10-year ASCVD risk from 5% to 30% were modelled, using the decrease in risk ratio per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol derived from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cholesterol-lowering medication.Data sourceSummary statistics from 26 RCTs comparing treatment versus placebo or less versus more effective treatment and 12 RCTs in which statin was compared with a higher dose of the same statin or with a similar statin dose to which an adjunctive cholesterol-lowering drug was added.SettingThe different recommended goals are: (1) LDL cholesterol≤2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL); (2) LDL cholesterol≤1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL); (3) non-high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol decrease of ≥40%; or (4) LDL cholesterol≤1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) or decreased by ≥50% whichever is lower.ParticipantsRCT participants.InterventionsStatins alone or in combination with ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors.Main outcome measuresFor each of the recommended therapeutic goals, our primary outcome was the number of events prevented per 100 people treated for 10 years (N100) and the number of needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one event over 10 years.ResultsAt pretreatment LDL cholesterol 4-5 mmol/L, all four goals provided similar benefit with N100 1.47-16.45 (NNT 6-68), depending on ASCVD risk and pretreatment LDL cholesterol. With initial LDL cholesterol in the range 2-3 mmol/L, the target of 2.6 mmol/L was the least effective with N100 between 0 and 2.84 (NNT 35-infinity). The goal of 1.8 mmol/L was little better. However, reductions in non-HDL cholesterol by ≥40% or of LDL cholesterol to 1.8 mmol/L and/or by 50%, whichever is lower, were more effective, delivering N100 of between 0.9 and 9.33 (NNT 11-111). Percentage decreases in LDL cholesterol or non-HDL cholesterol concentration are more effective targets than absolute change in concentration in people with initial values of <4 mmol/L.ConclusionsThe LDL cholesterol target of 1.8 mmol/L is most effective when initial LDL cholesterol is >4 mmol/L. The time has probably come for the LDL cholesterol goal of <2.6 mmol/L to be abandoned.

Project description:IntroductionModels that project the impact and cost-effectiveness of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) must specify how PrEP use aligns with HIV exposure. We hypothesized that varying PrEP use according to individual-level partnership dynamics rather than prioritization to population subgroups based on average risk will result in larger incidence reductions and greater efficiency.MethodsWe used an individual-based network transmission model calibrated to HIV dynamics in Eswatini to simulate PrEP use among individuals ages 15-34 between 2022 and 2031 under two paradigms of PrEP delivery: "Risk Group" and "Partnership." In the "Risk Group" paradigm, we varied PrEP coverage by risk groups (low, medium and high) defined by average partnership frequency and concurrency. In the "Partnership" paradigm, all individuals are potentially eligible for PrEP, but we assumed use occurs only during partnerships and varied prioritization by partner HIV status (no prioritization to high prioritization with HIV-positive partners). We calculated person-time on PrEP and incidence relative to a no PrEP scenario and estimated efficiency as the person-years of PrEP needed to avert one additional infection (NNT).ResultsIn the Risk Group paradigm, restricting PrEP to the high-risk group was the most efficient (NNT = 17), but the number of infections averted was limited by the small size of the high-risk group. Expanding PrEP use to all risk groups averted up to three times more infections but with lower efficiency (NNT = 202). PrEP use under the Partnership paradigm was 2-6 times more efficient (NNT = 33-102) than the Risk Group paradigm with all groups eligible for PrEP. A 33% reduction in incidence among 15- to 34-year-olds was achieved at 46% (95% CI: 39-52%) PrEP coverage in the Risk Group paradigm and 6% (95% CI: 5-7%) to 17% (95% CI: 14-20%) in the Partnership paradigm.ConclusionsModelling PrEP use based on risk groups resulted in a sharp trade-off between PrEP efficiency and impact, whereas PrEP use predicated on partnerships resulted in much higher efficiency for widespread PrEP availability. Model estimates of PrEP impact and cost-effectiveness in generalized epidemics are strongly influenced by assumptions about how PrEP use aligns with individual-level HIV exposure heterogeneity.

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.

Dataset Information

Effective mathematical modelling of health passes during a pandemic.

Publications

Effective mathematical modelling of health passes during a pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets