MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3177526435 · doi:10.1101/2021.07.01.21259870

Evaluation of the United States COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation Strategy

2021· preprint· en· W3177526435 sur OpenAlexaff
Md Rafiul Islam, Tamer Oraby, Audrey McCombs, Mohammad Mihrab Chowdhury, Mohammed Al-Mamun, Michael G. Tyshenko, Claus Kadelka

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVaccinationPopulationPrioritizationEconomic shortageMedicineDemographyPandemicEnvironmental healthDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmunologyBusinessInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Anticipating an initial shortage of vaccines for COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States developed priority vaccine allocations for specific demographic groups in the population. This study evaluates the performance of the CDC vaccine allocation strategy with respect to multiple potentially competing vaccination goals (minimizing mortality, cases, infections, and years of life lost (YLL)), under the same framework as the CDC allocation: four priority vaccination groups and population demographics stratified by age, comorbidities, occupation and living condition (congested or non-congested). Methods We developed a compartmental disease model that incorporates key elements of the current pandemic including age-varying susceptibility to infection, age-varying clinical fraction, an active case-count dependent social distancing level, and time-varying infectivity (accounting for the emergence of more infectious virus strains). Under this model, the CDC allocation strategy is compared to all other possibly optimal allocations that stagger vaccine roll-out in up to four phases (17.5 million strategies). Results The CDC allocation strategy performed well in all vaccination goals but never optimally. Under the developed model, the CDC allocation deviated from the optimal allocations by small amounts, with 0.19% more deaths, 4.0% more cases, 4.07% more infections, and 0.97% higher YLL, than the respective optimal strategies. The CDC decision to not prioritize the vaccination of individuals under the age of 16 was optimal, as was the prioritization of health-care workers and other essential workers over non-essential workers. Finally, a higher prioritization of individuals with comorbidities in all age groups improved outcomes compared to the CDC allocation. Interpretation The developed approach can be used to inform the design of future vaccine allocation strategies in the United States, or adapted for use by other countries seeking to optimize the effectiveness of their vaccine allocation strategies. Funding The authors received no funding for this work. Research in context Evidence before this study The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prioritized population groups for vaccination based on available scientific evidence, the feasibility of different implementation strategies, and ethical considerations. We searched PubMed using the query “(((COVID) AND (vaccin*)) AND (model)) AND ((priorit*) OR alloc*)” up to June 15, 2021, with no date or language restrictions. The search identified 190 articles, of which 15 used predictive models to evaluate the efficacy of vaccine allocation strategies in achieving vaccination campaign goals such as reducing mortality or incidence. All studies compared only a small number of specific, expertise-based allocations. Most studies stratified the population by age, while some considered additional characteristics such as occupation or comorbidity status, but none took into account all characteristics included in the CDC vaccine prioritizations. Added value of this study We developed a compartmental disease model that takes into account several important components of the COVID-19 pandemic, and stratifies the U.S. population by all characteristics included in the CDC vaccine prioritization recommendations. In a novel global optimization approach, we compared the CDC recommendations to all potentially optimal strategies (17.5 million strategies) that also stagger the vaccine roll-out in four phases. The CDC allocation strategy performed well in all considered outcome measures, but never optimally; a higher prioritization of individuals with comorbidities in all age groups improved outcomes. The CDC decision to initially not vaccinate children, as well as the prioritization of health-care workers and other essential workers over non-essential workers proved optimal under all outcome measures. Implications of all the available evidence Our study identifies and compares the optimal vaccine allocation strategies for several competing vaccination goals. The developed global optimization approach can be used to inform the design of future vaccine allocation strategies in the United States and elsewhere.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,065

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,097
Tête enseignante GPT0,381
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxivMême sujetVaccine Coverage and HesitancyTravaux en français237 207