This content will become publicly available on May 1, 2024
- Award ID(s):
- 2138192
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10439776
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- JAMA Network Open
- Volume:
- 6
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 2574-3805
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e2313586
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
null (Ed.)Abstract Background Global vaccine development efforts have been accelerated in response to the devastating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We evaluated the impact of a 2-dose COVID-19 vaccination campaign on reducing incidence, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States. Methods We developed an agent-based model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and parameterized it with US demographics and age-specific COVID-19 outcomes. Healthcare workers and high-risk individuals were prioritized for vaccination, whereas children under 18 years of age were not vaccinated. We considered a vaccine efficacy of 95% against disease following 2 doses administered 21 days apart achieving 40% vaccine coverage of the overall population within 284 days. We varied vaccine efficacy against infection and specified 10% preexisting population immunity for the base-case scenario. The model was calibrated to an effective reproduction number of 1.2, accounting for current nonpharmaceutical interventions in the United States. Results Vaccination reduced the overall attack rate to 4.6% (95% credible interval [CrI]: 4.3%–5.0%) from 9.0% (95% CrI: 8.4%–9.4%) without vaccination, over 300 days. The highest relative reduction (54%–62%) was observed among individuals aged 65 and older. Vaccination markedly reduced adverse outcomes, with non-intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalizations, ICU hospitalizations, and deaths decreasing by 63.5% (95% CrI: 60.3%–66.7%), 65.6% (95% CrI: 62.2%–68.6%), and 69.3% (95% CrI: 65.5%–73.1%), respectively, across the same period. Conclusions Our results indicate that vaccination can have a substantial impact on mitigating COVID-19 outbreaks, even with limited protection against infection. However, continued compliance with nonpharmaceutical interventions is essential to achieve this impact.more » « less
-
Abstract Background Estimating real-world vaccine effectiveness is challenging as a variety of population factors can impact vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the population-level reduction in cumulative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cases, hospitalizations, and mortality due to the BNT162b2 mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign in Israel during January–February 2021. Methods A susceptible-infected-recovered/removed (SIR) model and a Dynamic Survival Analysis (DSA) statistical approach were used. Daily counts of individuals who tested positive and of vaccine doses administered, obtained from the Israeli Ministry of Health, were used to calibrate the model. The model was parameterized using values derived from a previous phase of the pandemic during which similar lockdown and other preventive measures were implemented in order to take into account the effect of these prevention measures on COVID-19 spread. Results Our model predicted for the total population a reduction of 648 585 SARS-CoV-2 cases (75% confidence interval [CI], 25 877–1 396 963) during the first 2 months of the vaccination campaign. The number of averted hospitalizations for moderate to severe conditions was 16 101 (75% CI, 2010–33 035), and reduction of death was estimated at 5123 (75% CI, 388–10 815) fatalities. Among children aged 0–19 years, we estimated a reduction of 163 436 (75% CI, 0–433 233) SARS-CoV-2 cases, which we consider to be an indirect effect of the vaccine. Conclusions Our results suggest that the rapid vaccination campaign prevented hundreds of thousands of new cases as well as thousands of hospitalizations and fatalities and has probably averted a major health care crisis.more » « less
-
Read, Andrew Fraser (Ed.)Two of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines currently approved in the United States require 2 doses, administered 3 to 4 weeks apart. Constraints in vaccine supply and distribution capacity, together with a deadly wave of COVID-19 from November 2020 to January 2021 and the emergence of highly contagious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, sparked a policy debate on whether to vaccinate more individuals with the first dose of available vaccines and delay the second dose or to continue with the recommended 2-dose series as tested in clinical trials. We developed an agent-based model of COVID-19 transmission to compare the impact of these 2 vaccination strategies, while varying the temporal waning of vaccine efficacy following the first dose and the level of preexisting immunity in the population. Our results show that for Moderna vaccines, a delay of at least 9 weeks could maximize vaccination program effectiveness and avert at least an additional 17.3 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 7.8–29.7) infections, 0.69 (95% CrI: 0.52–0.97) hospitalizations, and 0.34 (95% CrI: 0.25–0.44) deaths per 10,000 population compared to the recommended 4-week interval between the 2 doses. Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines also averted an additional 0.60 (95% CrI: 0.37–0.89) hospitalizations and 0.32 (95% CrI: 0.23–0.45) deaths per 10,000 population in a 9-week delayed second dose (DSD) strategy compared to the 3-week recommended schedule between doses. However, there was no clear advantage of delaying the second dose with Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in reducing infections, unless the efficacy of the first dose did not wane over time. Our findings underscore the importance of quantifying the characteristics and durability of vaccine-induced protection after the first dose in order to determine the optimal time interval between the 2 doses.more » « less
-
Abstract Background The Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) is the largest health care provider in Mexico, covering about 48% of the Mexican population. In this report, we describe the epidemiological patterns related to confirmed cases, hospitalizations, intubations, and in-hospital mortality due to COVID-19 and associated factors, during five epidemic waves recorded in the IMSS surveillance system.
Methods We analyzed COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed cases from the Online Epidemiological Surveillance System (SINOLAVE) from March 29th, 2020, to August 27th, 2022. We constructed weekly epidemic curves describing temporal patterns of confirmed cases and hospitalizations by age, gender, and wave. We also estimated hospitalization, intubation, and hospital case fatality rates. The mean days of in-hospital stay and hospital admission delay were calculated across five pandemic waves. Logistic regression models were employed to assess the association between demographic factors, comorbidities, wave, and vaccination and the risk of severe disease and in-hospital death.
Results A total of 3,396,375 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were recorded across the five waves. The introduction of rapid antigen testing at the end of 2020 increased detection and modified epidemiological estimates. Overall, 11% (95% CI 10.9, 11.1) of confirmed cases were hospitalized, 20.6% (95% CI 20.5, 20.7) of the hospitalized cases were intubated, and the hospital case fatality rate was 45.1% (95% CI 44.9, 45.3). The mean in-hospital stay was 9.11 days, and patients were admitted on average 5.07 days after symptoms onset. The most recent waves dominated by the Omicron variant had the highest incidence. Hospitalization, intubation, and mean hospitalization days decreased during subsequent waves. The in-hospital case fatality rate fluctuated across waves, reaching its highest value during the second wave in winter 2020. A notable decrease in hospitalization was observed primarily among individuals ≥ 60 years. The risk of severe disease and death was positively associated with comorbidities, age, and male gender; and declined with later waves and vaccination status.
Conclusion During the five pandemic waves, we observed an increase in the number of cases and a reduction in severity metrics. During the first three waves, the high in-hospital fatality rate was associated with hospitalization practices for critical patients with comorbidities.
-
Abstract STUDY QUESTION To what extent is preconception maternal or paternal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination associated with miscarriage incidence?
SUMMARY ANSWER COVID-19 vaccination in either partner at any time before conception is not associated with an increased rate of miscarriage.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Several observational studies have evaluated the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and found no association with miscarriage, though no study prospectively evaluated the risk of early miscarriage (gestational weeks [GW] <8) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, no study has evaluated the role of preconception vaccination in both male and female partners.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An Internet-based, prospective preconception cohort study of couples residing in the USA and Canada. We analyzed data from 1815 female participants who conceived during December 2020–November 2022, including 1570 couples with data on male partner vaccination.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Eligible female participants were aged 21–45 years and were trying to conceive without use of fertility treatment at enrollment. Female participants completed questionnaires at baseline, every 8 weeks until pregnancy, and during early and late pregnancy; they could also invite their male partners to complete a baseline questionnaire. We collected data on COVID-19 vaccination (brand and date of doses), history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (yes/no and date of positive test), potential confounders (demographic, reproductive, and lifestyle characteristics), and pregnancy status on all questionnaires. Vaccination status was categorized as never (0 doses before conception), ever (≥1 dose before conception), having a full primary sequence before conception, and completing the full primary sequence ≤3 months before conception. These categories were not mutually exclusive. Participants were followed up from their first positive pregnancy test until miscarriage or a censoring event (induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, loss to follow-up, 20 weeks’ gestation), whichever occurred first. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for miscarriage and corresponding 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models with GW as the time scale. We used propensity score fine stratification weights to adjust for confounding.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Among 1815 eligible female participants, 75% had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the time of conception. Almost one-quarter of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, and 75% of miscarriages occurred <8 weeks’ gestation. The propensity score-weighted IRR comparing female participants who received at least one dose any time before conception versus those who had not been vaccinated was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.14). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of either early miscarriage (GW: <8) or late miscarriage (GW: 8–19). There was no indication of an increased risk of miscarriage associated with male partner vaccination (IRR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.44).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The present study relied on self-reported vaccination status and infection history. Thus, there may be some non-differential misclassification of exposure status. While misclassification of miscarriage is also possible, the preconception cohort design and high prevalence of home pregnancy testing in this cohort reduced the potential for under-ascertainment of miscarriage. As in all observational studies, residual or unmeasured confounding is possible.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the first study to evaluate prospectively the relation between preconception COVID-19 vaccination in both partners and miscarriage, with more complete ascertainment of early miscarriages than earlier studies of vaccination. The findings are informative for individuals planning a pregnancy and their healthcare providers.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Health [R01-HD086742 (PI: L.A.W.); R01-HD105863S1 (PI: L.A.W. and M.L.E.)], the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R03-AI154544; PI: A.K.R.), and the National Science Foundation (NSF-1914792; PI: L.A.W.). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. L.A.W. is a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc. She also receives in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics (Clearblue home pregnancy tests) and Kindara.com (fertility apps). M.L.E. received consulting fees from Ro, Hannah, Dadi, VSeat, and Underdog, holds stock in Ro, Hannah, Dadi, and Underdog, is a past president of SSMR, and is a board member of SMRU. K.F.H. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from UCB and Takeda, unrelated to this study. S.H.-D. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from Takeda, unrelated to this study, and a methods consultant for UCB and Roche for unrelated drugs. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.