Search

Author(s): Aditya Narayan 1, Argita D. Salindri 1, Salmaan Keshavjee 2,3, Monde Muyoyeta 4, Kavindhran Velen 5, Zulma V. Rueda 6,7, Julio Croda 8,9,10, Salome Charalambous 5,11, Alberto L. García-Basteiro [...]

Background The benefit of primary and booster vaccination in people who experienced a prior Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. The objective of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of primary (two-dose series) and booster (third dose) mRNA vaccination against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with a prior documented infection. Methods and findings We conducted a test-negative case-control study of reverse transcription PCRs (RT-PCRs) analyzed with the TaqPath (Thermo Fisher Scientific) assay and recorded in the Yale New Haven Health system from November 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Overall, 11,307 cases (positive TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs with S-gene target failure [SGTF]) and 130,041 controls (negative TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs) were included (median age: cases: 35 years, controls: 39 years). Among cases and controls, 5.9% and 8.1% had a documented prior infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test record [greater than or equal to]90 days prior to the included test), respectively. We estimated the effectiveness of primary and booster vaccination relative to SGTF-defined Omicron (lineage BA.1) variant infection using a logistic regression adjusted for date of test, age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, comorbidities, social venerability index, municipality, and healthcare utilization. The effectiveness of primary vaccination 14 to 149 days after the second dose was 41.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 14.1% to 59.4%, p 0.006) and 27.1% (95% CI: 18.7% to 34.6%, p < 0.001) for people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. The effectiveness of booster vaccination ([greater than or equal to]14 days after booster dose) was 47.1% (95% CI: 22.4% to 63.9%, p 0.001) and 54.1% (95% CI: 49.2% to 58.4%, p < 0.001) in people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. To test whether booster vaccination reduced the risk of infection beyond that of the primary series, we compared the odds of infection among boosted ([greater than or equal to]14 days after booster dose) and booster-eligible people ([greater than or equal to]150 days after second dose). The odds ratio (OR) comparing boosted and booster-eligible people with a documented prior infection was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.16, p 0.222), whereas the OR comparing boosted and booster-eligible people without a documented prior infection was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.59, p < 0.001). This study's limitations include the risk of residual confounding, the use of data from a single system, and the reliance on TaqPath analyzed RT-PCR results. Conclusions In this study, we observed that primary vaccination provided significant but limited protection against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with and without a documented prior infection. While booster vaccination was associated with additional protection against Omicron BA.1 infection in people without a documented prior infection, it was not found to be associated with additional protection among people with a documented prior infection. These findings support primary vaccination in people regardless of documented prior infection status but suggest that infection history may impact the relative benefit of booster doses., Author(s): Margaret L. Lind 1,*, Alexander J. Robertson 1, Julio Silva 2, Frederick Warner 3,4, Andreas C. Coppi 3,4, Nathan Price 3,4, Chelsea Duckwall 1, Peri Sosensky 1, Erendira C. [...]

Background Mortality during and after incarceration is poorly understood in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The need to address this knowledge gap is especially urgent in South America, which has the fastest growing prison population in the world. In Brazil, insufficient data have precluded our understanding of all-cause and cause-specific mortality during and after incarceration. Methods and findings We linked incarceration and mortality databases for the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso do Sul to obtain a retrospective cohort of 114,751 individuals with recent incarceration. Between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2018, we identified 3,127 deaths of individuals with recent incarceration (705 in detention and 2,422 following release). We analyzed age-standardized, all-cause, and cause-specific mortality rates among individuals detained in different facility types and following release, compared to non-incarcerated residents. We additionally modeled mortality rates over time during and after incarceration for all causes of death, violence, or suicide. Deaths in custody were 2.2 times the number reported by the national prison administration (n = 317). Incarcerated men and boys experienced elevated mortality, compared with the non-incarcerated population, due to increased risk of death from violence, suicide, and communicable diseases, with the highest standardized incidence rate ratio (IRR) in semi-open prisons (2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0 to 2.8), police stations (3.1; 95% CI: 2.5 to 3.9), and youth detention (8.1; 95% CI: 5.9 to 10.8). Incarcerated women experienced increased mortality from suicide (IRR = 6.0, 95% CI: 1.2 to 17.7) and communicable diseases (IRR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1 to 5.0). Following release from prison, mortality was markedly elevated for men (IRR = 3.0; 95% CI: 2.8 to 3.1) and women (IRR = 2.4; 95% CI: 2.1 to 2.9). The risk of violent death and suicide was highest immediately post-release and declined over time; however, all-cause mortality remained elevated 8 years post-release. The limitations of this study include inability to establish causality, uncertain reliability of data during incarceration, and underestimation of mortality rates due to imperfect database linkage. Conclusions Incarcerated individuals in Brazil experienced increased mortality from violence, suicide, and communicable diseases. Mortality was heightened following release for all leading causes of death, with particularly high risk of early violent death and elevated all-cause mortality up to 8 years post-release. These disparities may have been underrecognized in Brazil due to underreporting and insufficient data., Author(s): Yiran E. Liu 1,2, Everton Ferreira Lemos 3, Crhistinne Cavalheiro Maymone Gonçalves 3, Roberto Dias de Oliveira 4, Andrea da Silva Santos 5, Agne Oliveira do Prado Morais 3, [...]

Background It has been hypothesized that prisons serve as amplifiers of general tuberculosis (TB) epidemics, but there is a paucity of data on this phenomenon and the potential population-level effects of prison-focused interventions. This study (1) quantifies the TB risk for prisoners as they traverse incarceration and release, (2) mathematically models the impact of prison-based interventions on TB burden in the general population, and (3) generalizes this model to a wide range of epidemiological contexts. Methods and findings We obtained individual-level incarceration data for all inmates (n = 42,925) and all reported TB cases (n = 5,643) in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso do Sul from 2007 through 2013. We matched individuals between prisoner and TB databases and estimated the incidence of TB from the time of incarceration and the time of prison release using Cox proportional hazards models. We identified 130 new TB cases diagnosed during incarceration and 170 among individuals released from prison. During imprisonment, TB rates increased from 111 cases per 100,000 person-years at entry to a maximum of 1,303 per 100,000 person-years at 5.2 years. At release, TB incidence was 229 per 100,000 person-years, which declined to 42 per 100,000 person-years (the average TB incidence in Brazil) after 7 years. We used these data to populate a compartmental model of TB transmission and incarceration to evaluate the effects of various prison-based interventions on the incidence of TB among prisoners and the general population. Annual mass TB screening within Brazilian prisons would reduce TB incidence in prisons by 47.4% (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI], 44.4%-52.5%) and in the general population by 19.4% (95% BCI 17.9%-24.2%). A generalized model demonstrates that prison-based interventions would have maximum effectiveness in reducing community incidence in populations with a high concentration of TB in prisons and greater degrees of mixing between ex-prisoners and community members. Study limitations include our focus on a single Brazilian state and our retrospective use of administrative databases. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the prison environment, more so than the prison population itself, drives TB incidence, and targeted interventions within prisons could have a substantial effect on the broader TB epidemic., Author(s): Tarub S. Mabud 1, Maria de Lourdes Delgado Alves 2, Albert I. Ko 3, Sanjay Basu 1, Katharine S. Walter 1, Ted Cohen 3, Barun Mathema 4, Caroline Colijn [...]

Background: India has announced a goal of universal access to quality tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis and treatment. A number of novel diagnostics could help meet this important goal. The rollout of one such diagnostic, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is being considered, but if Xpert is used mainly for people with HIV or high risk of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) in the public sector, population-level impact may be limited. Methods and Findings: We developed a model of TB transmission, care-seeking behavior, and diagnostic/treatment practices in India and explored the impact of six different rollout strategies. Providing Xpert to 40% of public-sector patients with HIV or prior TB treatment (similar to current national strategy) reduced TB incidence by 0.2% (95% uncertainty range [UR]: -1.4%, 1.7%) and MDR-TB incidence by 2.4% (95% UR: -5.2%, 9.1%) relative to existing practice but required 2,500 additional MDR-TB treatments and 60 four-module GeneXpert systems at maximum capacity. Further including 20% of unselected symptomatic individuals in the public sector required 700 systems and reduced incidence by 2.1% (95% UR: 0.5%, 3.9%);a similar approach involving qualified private providers (providers who have received at least some training in allopathic or non-allopathic medicine) reduced incidence by 6.0% (95% UR: 3.9%, 7.9%) with similar resource outlay, but only if high treatment success was assured. Engaging 20% of all private-sector providers (qualified and informal [providers with no formal medical training]) had the greatest impact (14.1% reduction, 95% UR: 10.6%, 16.9%), but required .2,200 systems and reliable treatment referral. Improving referrals from informal providers for smear-based diagnosis in the public sector (without Xpert rollout) had substantially greater impact (6.3% reduction) than Xpert scale-up within the public sector. These findings are subject to substantial uncertainty regarding private-sector treatment patterns, patient care-seeking behavior, symptoms, and infectiousness over time; these uncertainties should be addressed by future research. Conclusions: The impact of new diagnostics for TB control in India depends on implementation within the complex, fragmented health-care system. Transformative strategies will require private/informal-sector engagement, adequate referral systems, improved treatment quality, and substantial resources. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary., Introduction Despite being a largely curable disease, tuberculosis (TB) causes 8.7 million new cases and 1.4 million deaths per year, over 25% of which--including cases caused by 'totally drug-resistant' strains--occur [...]