Search

Test-negative designs are increasingly used to evaluate vaccine effectiveness because of desirable properties like reduced confounding due to healthcare-seeking behaviors and lower cost compared to other study designs. An individual's decision to seek care often depends on their disease severity, with severe disease more likely to be captured than mild disease. As many vaccines likely attenuate disease severity, this phenomenon generally results in an upward-biased estimate of vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease. To address the resulting bias, analytic solutions like adjusting for or matching on severity have been suggested. In this paper, we examine the performance of the test-negative design under different vaccine effects on disease severity and the utility of adjusting or matching on severity. We further consider the implications of studies that focus only on milder disease by restricting recruitment to outpatient settings. Through an analytic framework and simulations accompanied by a real-world example, we demonstrate that, when vaccination attenuates disease severity, the magnitude of bias is influenced by the degree of under-ascertainment of mild disease relative to severe disease. When vaccination does not attenuate disease severity, bias is not present. We further show that analytic fixes negligibly impact bias and that outpatient-only studies frequently produce downward-biased estimates., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

Background: The emergence of COVID-19 variants with immune scape and the waning of primary vaccine schemes effectiveness have prompted many countries to indicate first and second booster COVID-19 vaccine doses to prevent severe COVID-19. However, current available evidence on second booster dose effectiveness are mostly limited to high-income countries, older adults, and mRNA-based vaccination schemes scenarios. We aimed to investigate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the fourth dose compared to three doses for severe COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil; and compare the rVE of a fourth dose with an mRNA vaccine compared to adenovirus-based product in the same settings., Methods: We performed a target emulated trial using a population-based cohort of individuals aged 40 years or older who have received a homologous primary scheme of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, or BNT162b2, and any third dose product and were eligible for the fourth dose in Brazil. The primary outcome was COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death. We built Cohort A matching individuals vaccinated with a fourth dose to individuals who received three doses to estimate the rVE of the fourth dose. We built Cohort B, a subset of Cohort A, matching mRNA-based (mRNA) to adenovirus-based fourth dose vaccinated individuals to compare their relative hazards for severe COVID-19., Findings: 46,693,484 individuals were included in Cohort A and 6,763,016 in Cohort B. 45% of them were aged between 40 and 60 years old, and 48% between 60 and 79 years old. In Cohort A, the most common previous series was a ChAdOx1 two-dose followed by BNT162b2 (44%), and a CoronaVac two-dose followed by a BNT162b2 (36%). Among those fourth dose vaccinated, 36.9% received ChAdOx1, 32.7% Ad26.COV2.S, 25.8% BNT162b2, and 4.7% CoronaVac. In Cohort B, among those who received an adenovirus fourth dose, 53.7% received ChAdOx1 and 46.3% received Ad26.COV2.S. The estimated rVE for the primary outcome of four doses compared to three doses was 44.1% (95% CI 42.3-46.0), with some waning during follow-up (rVE 7-60 days 46.8% [95% CI 44.4-49.1], rVE after 120 days 33.8% [95% CI 18.0-46.6]). Among fourth dose vaccinated individuals, mRNA-based vaccinated individuals had lower hazards for hospitalization or death compared to adenovirus-vaccinated individuals (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87). After 120 days, no difference in hazards between groups was observed (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.97). Similar findings were observed for hospitalization and death separately, except no evidence for differences between fourth dose brands for death in Cohort B., Interpretation: In a heterogeneous scenario of primary and first booster vaccination combinations, a fourth dose provided meaningful and durable protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to adenovirus-based booster, a fourth dose wild-type mRNA vaccine was associated with immediate lower hazards of hospitalization or death unsustained after 120 days., Funding: None., Competing Interests: MDTH reports a contract from Merck and Dohme (to the University of Florida) for research unrelated to this manuscript. DATC reports a contract from Pfizer Inc. Paid to the University of Florida for research unrelated to this manuscript. ML received grants from the NIAID for COVID-19 prevention with correctional facilities. AIK received funding from Beatrice Kleinberg Neuwirth Family Fund, Sendas Family Fund, Regeneron, Merck, Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, Paul Hastings LLD, National Academy of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, and is on the Board of Directors (unpaid) of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. JC received funding from Sanofi, MSD, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Valneva/Butantan and payment/honoraria from Foro Latinoamericano para Asesores Médicos en Vacunas 2023 (Pfizer), Pfizer Emerging Markets Advance Speaker Training 2024 (Pfizer). Also, JC is on the Brazil advisory board for mRNA-1273 vaccine (Modern/Zodiac), RSV maternal vaccine (Pfizer) and Qdenga vaccine (Takeda). NED received funding from the NIH/NIAID R01-AI139761, Emergent Biosolutions, and Bavarian Nordic. OTR acknowledges funding from the END-VOC Project (Horizon 2021–2024), funded by the European Union under grant agreement no. 101046314. OTR acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through the Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa 2019–2023 programme (CEX2018-000806-S) and from the Generalitat de Catalunya through the Centres de Recerca de Catalunya (CERCA) programme. The remaining authors declare they have no competing interests. These institutions had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Serological assays used to estimate the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) often rely on manufacturers' cutoffs established on the basis of severe cases. We conducted a household-based serosurvey of 4,677 individuals in Chennai, India, from January to May 2021. Samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to the spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins. We calculated seroprevalence, defining seropositivity using manufacturer cutoffs and using a mixture model based on measured IgG level. Using manufacturer cutoffs, there was a 5-fold difference in seroprevalence estimated by each assay. This difference was largely reconciled using the mixture model, with estimated anti-S and anti-N IgG seroprevalence of 64.9% (95% credible interval (CrI): 63.8, 66.0) and 51.5% (95% CrI: 50.2, 52.9), respectively. Age and socioeconomic factors showed inconsistent relationships with anti-S and anti-N IgG seropositivity using manufacturer cutoffs. In the mixture model, age was not associated with seropositivity, and improved household ventilation was associated with lower seropositivity odds. With global vaccine scale-up, the utility of the more stable anti-S IgG assay may be limited due to the inclusion of the S protein in several vaccines. Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence using alternative targets must consider heterogeneity in seroresponse to ensure that seroprevalence is not underestimated and correlates are not misinterpreted., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccines confer exposure-dependent ("leaky") protection against infection remains unknown. We examined the effect of prior infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity on infection risk among residents of Connecticut correctional facilities during periods of predominant Omicron and Delta transmission. Residents with cell, cellblock, and no documented exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infected residents were matched by facility and date. During the Omicron period, prior infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity reduced the infection risk of residents without a documented exposure (HR: 0.36 [0.25-0.54]; 0.57 [0.42-0.78]; 0.24 [0.15-0.39]; respectively) and with cellblock exposures (0.61 [0.49-0.75]; 0.69 [0.58-0.83]; 0.41 [0.31-0.55]; respectively) but not with cell exposures (0.89 [0.58-1.35]; 0.96 [0.64-1.46]; 0.80 [0.46-1.39]; respectively). Associations were similar during the Delta period and when analyses were restricted to tested residents. Although associations may not have been thoroughly adjusted due to dataset limitations, the findings suggest that prior infection and vaccination may be leaky, highlighting the potential benefits of pairing vaccination with non-pharmaceutical interventions in crowded settings., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Serological surveys are used to ascertain influenza infection and immunity, but evidence for the utility of mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) as a correlate of infection or protection is limited., Methods: We performed influenza-like illness (ILI) surveillance on 220 individuals living or working in a retirement community in Gainesville, Florida from January to May 2018, and took pre- and postseason nasal samples of 11 individuals with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed influenza infection and 60 randomly selected controls. Mucosal IgA against 10 strains of influenza was measured from nasal samples., Results: Overall, 28.2% and 11.3% of individuals experienced a 2-fold and 4-fold rise, respectively, in mucosal IgA to at least 1 influenza strain. Individuals with PCR-confirmed influenza A had significantly lower levels of preseason IgA to influenza A. Influenza-associated respiratory illness was associated with a higher rise in mucosal IgA to influenza strains of the same subtype, and H3N2-associated respiratory illness was associated with a higher rise in mucosal IgA to other influenza A strains., Conclusions: By comparing individuals with and without influenza illness, we demonstrated that mucosal IgA is a correlate of influenza infection. There was evidence for cross-reactivity in mucosal IgA across influenza A subtypes., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. D. T. H. and D. A. T. C. report a contract from Merck (to the University of Florida) for research unrelated to this article. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Limited dengue virus (DENV) seroprevalence estimates are available for Puerto Rico, which are needed to inform the potential use and cost-effectiveness of DENV vaccines. The Communities Organized to Prevent Arboviruses (COPA) is a cohort study initiated in 2018 in Ponce, Puerto Rico, to assess arboviral disease risk and provide a platform to evaluate interventions. We recruited participants from households in 38 study clusters, who were interviewed and provided a serum specimen. Specimens from 713 children aged 1 to 16 years during the first year of COPA were tested for the four DENV serotypes and ZIKV using a focus reduction neutralization assay. We assessed the seroprevalence of DENV and ZIKV by age and developed a catalytic model from seroprevalence and dengue surveillance data to estimate the force of infection for DENV during 2003-2018. Overall, 37% (n = 267) were seropositive for DENV; seroprevalence was 9% (11/128) among children aged 1 to 8 years and 44% (256/585) among children aged 9 to 16 years, exceeding the threshold over which DENV vaccination is deemed cost-effective. A total of 33% were seropositive for ZIKV, including 15% among children aged 0 to 8 years and 37% among children aged 9 to 16 years. The highest force of infection occurred in 2007, 2010, and 2012-2013, with low levels of transmission from 2016 to 2018. A higher proportion of children had evidence of multitypic DENV infection than expected, suggesting high heterogeneity in DENV risk in this setting.

Background: Household transmission studies inform how viruses spread among close contacts, but few characterize household transmission of endemic coronaviruses., Methods: We used data collected from 223 households with school-age children participating in weekly disease surveillance over 2 respiratory virus seasons (December 2015 to May 2017), to describe clinical characteristics of endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV-229E, HcoV-HKU1, HcoV-NL63, HcoV-OC43) infections, and community and household transmission probabilities using a chain-binomial model correcting for missing data from untested households., Results: Among 947 participants in 223 households, we observed 121 infections during the study, most commonly subtype HCoV-OC43. Higher proportions of infected children (<19 years) displayed influenza-like illness symptoms than infected adults (relative risk, 3.0; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.5-6.9). The estimated weekly household transmission probability was 9% (95% CrI, 6-13) and weekly community acquisition probability was 7% (95% CrI, 5-10). We found no evidence for differences in community or household transmission probabilities by age or symptom status. Simulations suggest that our study was underpowered to detect such differences., Conclusions: Our study highlights the need for large household studies to inform household transmission, the challenges in estimating household transmission probabilities from asymptomatic individuals, and implications for controlling endemic CoVs., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. T. M. Q. received honoraria for and served on the MEICHV COVID-19 Health Equity Community Advisory Board. M. D. T. H. and D. A. T. C. reports contract from Merck (to the University of Florida) for research unrelated to this manuscript. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Reconstructing the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection is central to understanding the state of the pandemic. Seroprevalence studies are often used to assess cumulative infections as they can identify asymptomatic infection. Since July 2020, commercial laboratories have conducted nationwide serosurveys for the U.S. CDC. They employed three assays, with different sensitivities and specificities, potentially introducing biases in seroprevalence estimates. Using models, we show that accounting for assays explains some of the observed state-to-state variation in seroprevalence, and when integrating case and death surveillance data, we show that when using the Abbott assay, estimates of proportions infected can differ substantially from seroprevalence estimates. We also found that states with higher proportions infected (before or after vaccination) had lower vaccination coverages, a pattern corroborated using a separate dataset. Finally, to understand vaccination rates relative to the increase in cases, we estimated the proportions of the population that received a vaccine prior to infection., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The impact variant-specific immune evasion and waning protection have on declining coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) remains unclear. Using whole-genome sequencing (WGS), we examined the contribution these factors had on the decline that followed the introduction of the Delta variant. Furthermore, we evaluated calendar-period-based classification as a WGS alternative., Methods: We conducted a test-negative case-control study among people tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 1 April and 24 August 2021. Variants were classified using WGS and calendar period., Results: We included 2029 cases (positive, sequenced samples) and 343 727 controls (negative tests). VE 14-89 days after second dose was significantly higher against Alpha (84.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 75.6%-90.0%) than Delta infection (68.9%; 95% CI, 58.0%-77.1%). The odds of Delta infection were significantly higher 90-149 than 14-89 days after second dose (P value = .003). Calendar-period-classified VE estimates approximated WGS-classified estimates; however, calendar-period-based classification was subject to misclassification (35% Alpha, 4% Delta)., Conclusions: Both waning protection and variant-specific immune evasion contributed to the lower effectiveness. While calendar-period-classified VE estimates mirrored WGS-classified estimates, our analysis highlights the need for WGS when variants are cocirculating and misclassification is likely., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. A. I. K. serves as an expert panel member for Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, scientific advisory board member for Revelar Biotherapeutics, and a consultant for Tata Medical and Diagnostics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and has received grants from Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Tata Medical and Diagnostics for research related to COVID-19. W. L. S. was an investigator for a research agreement, through Yale University, from the Shenzhen Center for Health Information for work to advance intelligent disease prevention and health promotion; collaborates with the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing; is a technical consultant to Hugo Health, a personal health information platform; cofounder of Refactor Health, an AI-augmented data management platform for health care; and has received grants from Merck and Regeneron Pharmaceutical for research related to COVID-19. J. D. H., R. C., S. M., D. F., S. H., and A. Z. are employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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 ≥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 (≥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 (≥14 days after booster dose) and booster-eligible people (≥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., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: A.I.K serves as an expert panel member for Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, scientific advisory board member for Revelar Biotherapeutics and a consultant for Tata Medical and Diagnostics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and has received grants from Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Tata Medical and Diagnostics for research related to COVID-19. W.L.S. was an investigator for a research agreement, through Yale University, from the Shenzhen Center for Health Information for work to advance intelligent disease prevention and health promotion; collaborates with the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing; is a technical consultant to Hugo Health, a personal health information platform, and co-founder of Refactor Health, an AI-augmented data management platform for healthcare; and has received grants from Merck and Regeneron Pharmaceutical for research related to COVID-19. Other authors declare no conflict of interest. M.O.F had past stock ownership in GlaxoSmithKline. MDTH reports a contract (to the University of Florida) from Merck, Sharp and Dohme to perform research unrelated to this project., (Copyright: © 2022 Lind et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The effectiveness of inactivated vaccines (VE) against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 caused by omicron is unknown. We conducted a nationwide, test-negative, case-control study to estimate VE for homologous and heterologous (BNT162b2) booster doses in adults who received two doses of CoronaVac in Brazil in the Omicron context. Analyzing 1,386,544 matched-pairs, VE against symptomatic disease was 8.6% (95% CI, 5.6-11.5) and 56.8% (95% CI, 56.3-57.3) in the period 8-59 days after receiving a homologous and heterologous booster, respectively. During the same interval, VE against severe Covid-19 was 73.6% (95% CI, 63.9-80.7) and 86.0% (95% CI, 84.5-87.4) after receiving a homologous and heterologous booster, respectively. Waning against severe Covid-19 after 120 days was only observed after a homologous booster. Heterologous booster might be preferable to individuals with completed primary series inactivated vaccine., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The structural environment of urban slums, including physical, demographic, and socioeconomic attributes, renders inhabitants more vulnerable to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Yet, little is known about the specific determinants that contribute to high transmission within these communities. We therefore aimed to investigate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in an urban slum in Brazil., Methods and Findings: We performed a cross-sectional serosurvey of an established cohort of 2,041 urban slum residents from the city of Salvador, Brazil between November 2020 and February 2021, following the first Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic wave in the country and during the onset of the second wave. The median age in this population was 29 years (interquartile range [IQR] 16 to 44); most participants reported their ethnicity as Black (51.5%) or Brown (41.7%), and 58.5% were female. The median size of participating households was 3 (IQR 2 to 4), with a median daily per capita income of 2.32 (IQR 0.33-5.15) US Dollars. The main outcome measure was presence of IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We implemented multilevel models with random intercepts for each household to estimate seroprevalence and associated risk factors, adjusting for the sensitivity and specificity of the assay, and the age and gender distribution of our study population. We identified high seroprevalence (47.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 44.2% to 52.1%), particularly among female residents (50.3% [95% CI 46.3% to 54.8%] versus 44.6% [95% CI 40.1% to 49.4%] among male residents, p < 0.01) and among children (54.4% [95% CI 49.6% to 59.3%] versus 45.4% [95% CI 41.5% to 49.7%] among adults, p < 0.01). Adults residing in households with children were more likely to be seropositive (48.6% [95% CI 44.8% to 52.3%] versus 40.7% [95% CI 37.2% to 44.3%], p < 0.01). Women who were unemployed and living below the poverty threshold (daily per capita household income <$1.25) were more likely to be seropositive compared to men with the same employment and income status (53.9% [95% CI 47.0% to 60.6%] versus 32.9% [95% CI 23.2% to 44.3%], p < 0.01). Participation in the study was voluntary, which may limit the generalizability of our findings., Conclusions: Prior to the peak of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, cumulative incidence as assessed by serology approached 50% in a Brazilian urban slum population. In contrast to observations from industrialized countries, SARS-CoV-2 incidence was highest among children, as well as women living in extreme poverty. These findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions that provide safe environments for children and mitigate the structural risks posed by crowding and poverty for the most vulnerable residents of urban slum communities., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: A.I.K serves as an expert panel member for Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, scientific advisory board member for Revelar Biotherapeutics and a consultant for Tata Medical and Diagnostics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and has received grants from Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Tata Medical and Diagnostics for research related to COVID-19, all of which are outside the scope of the submitted work. D.A.T.C. has received a grant from Merck for research unrelated to COVID-19, outside of the scope of this work. M.O.F has past stock ownership in GlaxoSmithKline. Other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Postauthorization observational studies play a key role in understanding COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness following the demonstration of efficacy in clinical trials. Although bias due to confounding, selection bias, and misclassification can be mitigated through careful study design, unmeasured confounding is likely to remain in these observational studies. Phase III trials of COVID-19 vaccines have shown that protection from vaccination does not occur immediately, meaning that COVID-19 risk should be similar in recently vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, in the absence of confounding or other bias. Several studies have used the estimated effectiveness among recently vaccinated individuals as a negative control exposure to detect bias in vaccine effectiveness estimates. In this paper, we introduce a theoretical framework to describe the interpretation of such a bias indicator in test-negative studies, and outline strong assumptions that would allow vaccine effectiveness among recently vaccinated individuals to serve as a negative control exposure., Competing Interests: J.A.L. has received grants and consulting fees from Pfizer, Inc., unrelated to this research. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the change in odds of covid-19 over time following primary series completion of the inactivated whole virus vaccine CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech) in São Paulo State, Brazil., Design: Test negative case-control study., Setting: Community testing for covid-19 in São Paulo State, Brazil., Participants: Adults aged ≥18 years who were residents of São Paulo state, had received two doses of CoronaVac, did not have a laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination, and underwent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 from 17 January to 14 December 2021. Cases were matched to test negative controls by age (in 5 year bands), municipality of residence, healthcare worker status, and epidemiological week of RT-PCR test., Main Outcome Measures: RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic covid-19 and associated hospital admissions and deaths. Conditional logistic regression was adjusted for sex, number of covid-19 associated comorbidities, race, and previous acute respiratory illness., Results: From 202 741 eligible people, 52 170 cases with symptomatic covid-19 and 69 115 test negative controls with covid-19 symptoms were formed into 43 257 matched sets. Adjusted odds ratios of symptomatic covid-19 increased with time since completion of the vaccination series. The increase in odds was greater in younger people and among healthcare workers, although sensitivity analyses suggested that this was in part due to bias. In addition, the adjusted odds ratios of covid-19 related hospital admission or death significantly increased with time compared with the odds 14-41 days after series completion: from 1.25 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.51) at 70-97 days up to 1.94 (1.41 to 2.67) from 182 days onwards., Conclusions: Significant increases in the risk of moderate and severe covid-19 outcomes occurred three months after primary vaccination with CoronaVac among people aged 65 and older. These findings provide supportive evidence for the implementation of vaccine boosters in these populations who received this inactivated vaccine. Studies of waning should include analyses designed to uncover common biases., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases and from the Sendas Family and Beatrice Kleinberg Neuwirth Funds; MDTH and DATC report a contract from Merck (to the University of Florida) for research unrelated to this manuscript; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: COVID-19 vaccines have proven highly effective among individuals without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, but their effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection and severe outcomes among individuals with previous infection is less clear. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness of four COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic infection, hospitalisation, and death for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection., Methods: Using national COVID-19 notification, hospitalisation, and vaccination datasets from Brazil, we did a test-negative, case-control study to assess the effectiveness of four vaccines (CoronaVac [Sinovac], ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AstraZeneca], Ad26.COV2.S [Janssen], and BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNtech]) for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. We matched cases with RT-PCR positive, symptomatic COVID-19 with up to ten controls with negative RT-PCR tests who presented with symptomatic illnesses, restricting both groups to tests done at least 90 days after an initial infection. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to compare the odds of test positivity and the odds of hospitalisation or death due to COVID-19, according to vaccination status and time since first or second dose of vaccines., Findings: Between Feb 24, 2020, and Nov 11, 2021, we identified 213 457 individuals who had a subsequent, symptomatic illness with RT-PCR testing done at least 90 days after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection and after the vaccination programme started. Among these, 30 910 (14·5%) had a positive RT-PCR test consistent with reinfection, and we matched 22 566 of these cases with 145 055 negative RT-PCR tests from 68 426 individuals as controls. Among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 39·4% (95% CI 36·1-42·6) for CoronaVac, 56·0% (51·4-60·2) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 44·0% (31·5-54·2) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 64·8% (54·9-72·4) for BNT162b2. For the two-dose vaccine series (CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and BNT162b2), effectiveness against symptomatic infection was significantly greater after the second dose than after the first dose. Effectiveness against hospitalisation or death 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 81·3% (75·3-85·8) for CoronaVac, 89·9% (83·5-93·8) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 57·7% (-2·6 to 82·5) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 89·7% (54·3-97·7) for BNT162b2., Interpretation: All four vaccines conferred additional protection against symptomatic infections and severe outcomes among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The provision of a full vaccine series to individuals after recovery from COVID-19 might reduce morbidity and mortality., Funding: Brazilian National Research Council, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, JBS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and Generalitat de Catalunya., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MB-N reports grants from the Fazer o Bem Faz Bem programme from JBS. AIK reports grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Serimmune; and grants and personal fees from Tata Medical Devices, outside the submitted work. VdAO, VSB, MLB, JC, and MB-N are employees of Fiocruz, a federal public institution, which manufactures Vaxzevria (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine) in Brazil through a full technology transfer agreement with AstraZeneca. Fiocruz allocates all its manufactured products to the Ministry of Health for public health use. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Arboviruses transmitted by Aedes aegypti including dengue, Zika, and chikungunya are a major global health problem, with over 2.5 billion at risk for dengue alone. There are no licensed antivirals for these infections, and safe and effective vaccines are not yet widely available. Thus, prevention of arbovirus transmission by vector modification is a novel approach being pursued by multiple researchers. However, the field needs high-quality evidence derived from randomized, controlled trials upon which to base the implementation and maintenance of vector control programs. Here, we report the EVITA Dengue trial design (DMID 17-0111), which assesses the efficacy in decreasing arbovirus transmission of an innovative approach developed by the World Mosquito Program for vector modification of Aedes mosquitoes by Wolbachia pipientis., Methods: DMID 17-0111 is a cluster-randomized trial in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, with clusters defined by primary school catchment areas. Clusters (n = 58) will be randomized 1:1 to intervention (release of Wolbachia-infected Aedes aegypti mosquitoes) vs. control (no release). Standard vector control activities (i.e., insecticides and education campaigns for reduction of mosquito breeding sites) will continue as per current practice in the municipality. Participants (n = 3480, 60 per cluster) are children aged 6-11 years enrolled in the cluster-defining school and living within the cluster boundaries who will undergo annual serologic surveillance for arboviral infection. The primary objective is to compare sero-incidence of arboviral infection between arms., Discussion: DMID 17-0111 aims to determine the efficacy of Wolbachia-infected mosquito releases in reducing human infections by arboviruses transmitted by Aedes aegypti and will complement the mounting evidence for this method from large-scale field releases and ongoing trials. The trial also represents a critical step towards robustness and rigor for how vector control methods are assessed, including the simultaneous measurement and correlation of entomologic and epidemiologic outcomes. Data from this trial will inform further the development of novel vector control methods., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04514107 . Registered on 17 August 2020 Primary sponsor: National Institute of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Community-based management of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) involves weekly or biweekly outpatient clinic visits for clinical surveillance and distribution of therapeutic foods. Distance to outpatient clinics and high opportunity costs for caregivers can represent major barriers to access. Reducing the frequency of outpatient visits while providing training to caregivers to recognize clinical danger signs at home between outpatient visits may increase acceptability, coverage, and public health impact of SAM treatment. We investigated the effectiveness of monthly clinic visits compared to the standard weekly follow-up in the outpatient treatment of uncomplicated SAM in northwestern Nigeria., Methods and Findings: We conducted a cluster randomized crossover trial to test the noninferiority of nutritional recovery in children with uncomplicated SAM receiving monthly follow-up compared to the standard weekly schedule. From January 2018 to November 2019, 3,945 children aged 6 to 59 months were enrolled at 10 health centers (5 assigned to monthly follow-up and 5 assigned to weekly follow-up) in Sokoto, Nigeria. In total, 96% of children (n = 1,976 in the monthly follow-up group and 1,802 in the weekly follow-up group) were followed until program discharge, and 91% (n = 1,873 in the monthly follow-up group and 1,721 in the weekly follow-up group) were followed to 3 months postdischarge. The mean age at admission was 15.8 months (standard deviation [SD] 7.1), 2,097/3,945 (53.2%) were girls, and the mean midupper arm circumference (MUAC) at admission was 105.8 mm (SD 6.0). In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome of nutritional recovery, defined as having MUAC ≥125 mm on 2 consecutive visits, was analyzed using generalized linear models, with generalized estimating equations to account for clustering. Nutritional recovery was lower in the monthly follow-up group compared to the weekly group (1,036/1,976, 52.4% versus 1,059/1,802, 58.8%; risk difference: -6.8%), and noninferiority was not demonstrated (lower bound of the confidence interval [CI] was -11.5%, lower than the noninferiority margin of 10%). The proportion of children defaulting was lower in the monthly group than in the weekly group (109/1,976, 5.5% versus 151/1,802, 8.4%, p = 0.03). Three months postdischarge, children in the monthly group were less likely to relapse compared to those in the weekly group (58/976, 5.9% versus 78/1,005, 7.8%, p = 0.03), but cumulative mortality at 3 months postdischarge was higher in the monthly group (159/1,873, 8.5% versus 106/1,721, 6.2%, p < 0.001). Study results may depend on context-specific factors including baseline level of care and the clinical status of children presenting to health centers, and, thus, generalizability of these results may be limited., Conclusions: Where feasible, a weekly schedule of clinic visits should be preferred to maintain effectiveness of SAM treatment. Where geographic coverage of programs is low or frequent travel to outpatient clinics is difficult or impossible, a monthly schedule of visits may provide an alternative model to deliver treatment to those in need. Modifications to the outpatient follow-up schedule, for example, weekly clinic visits until initial weight gain has been achieved followed by monthly visits, could increase the effectiveness of the model and add flexibility for program delivery., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03140904., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: RFG is an Academic Editor on PLOS Medicine’s editorial board.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents a large risk to healthcare personnel (HCP). Quantifying the risk of coronavirus infection associated with workplace activities is an urgent need., Methods: We assessed the association of worker characteristics, occupational roles and behaviors, and participation in procedures with the risk of endemic coronavirus infection among HCP who participated in the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT), a cluster randomized trial to assess personal protective equipment to prevent respiratory infections and illness conducted from 2011 to 2016., Results: Among 4689 HCP seasons, we detected coronavirus infection in 387 (8%). HCP who participated in an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP) at least once during the viral respiratory season were 105% (95% confidence interval, 21%-240%) more likely to be diagnosed with a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection. Younger individuals, those who saw pediatric patients, and those with household members <5 years of age were at increased risk of coronavirus infection., Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that the risk of HCP becoming infected with an endemic coronavirus increases approximately 2-fold with exposures to AGPs. Our findings may be relevant to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, may differ from endemic coronaviruses in important ways., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01249625., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

A two-dose regimen of the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) Covid-19 vaccine with an inter-dose interval of three months has been implemented in many countries with restricted vaccine supply. However, there is limited evidence for the effectiveness of ChAdOx1 by dose in elderly populations in countries with high prevalence of the Gamma variant of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we estimate ChAdOx1 effectiveness by dose against the primary endpoint of RT-PCR-confirmed Covid-19, and secondary endpoints of Covid-19 hospitalization and Covid-19-related death, in adults aged ≥60 years during an epidemic with high Gamma variant prevalence in São Paulo state, Brazil using a matched, test-negative case-control study. Starting 28 days after the first dose, effectiveness of a single dose of ChAdOx1 is 33.4% (95% CI, 26.4-39.7) against Covid-19, 55.1% (95% CI, 46.6-62.2) against hospitalization, and 61.8% (95% CI, 48.9-71.4) against death. Starting 14 days after the second dose, effectiveness of the two-dose schedule is 77.9% (95% CI, 69.2-84.2) against Covid-19, 87.6% (95% CI, 78.2-92.9) against hospitalization, and 93.6% (95% CI, 81.9-97.7) against death. Completion of the ChAdOx1 vaccine schedule affords significantly increased protection over a single dose against mild and severe Covid-19 outcomes in elderly individuals during widespread Gamma variant circulation., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant, Gamma, emerged in the city of Manaus in late 2020 during a large resurgence of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and has spread throughout Brazil. The effectiveness of vaccines in settings with widespread Gamma variant transmission has not been reported., Methods: We performed a matched test-negative case-control study to estimate the effectiveness of an inactivated vaccine, CoronaVac, in healthcare workers (HCWs) in Manaus, where the Gamma variant accounted for 86% of genotyped SARS-CoV-2 samples at the peak of its epidemic. We performed an early analysis of effectiveness following administration of at least one vaccine dose and an analysis of effectiveness of the two-dose schedule. The primary outcome was symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection., Findings: For the early at-least-one-dose and two-dose analyses the study population was, respectively, 53,176 and 53,153 HCWs residing in Manaus and aged 18 years or older, with complete information on age, residence, and vaccination status. Among 53,153 HCWs eligible for the two-dose analysis, 47,170 (89%) received at least one dose of CoronaVac and 2,656 individuals (5%) underwent RT-PCR testing from 19 January, 2021 to 13 April, 2021. Of 3,195 RT-PCR tests, 885 (28%) were positive. 393 and 418 case-control pairs were selected for the early and two-dose analyses, respectively, matched on calendar time, age, and neighbourhood. Among those who had received both vaccine doses before the RT-PCR sample collection date, the average time from second dose to sample collection date was 14 days (IQR 7-24). In the early analysis, vaccination with at least one dose was associated with a 0.50-fold reduction (adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE), 49.6%, 95% CI 11.3 to 71.4) in the odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during the period 14 days or more after receiving the first dose. However, we estimated low effectiveness (adjusted VE 36.8%, 95% CI -54.9 to 74.2) of the two-dose schedule against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during the period 14 days or more after receiving the second dose. A finding that vaccinated individuals were much more likely to be infected than unvaccinated individuals in the period 0-13 days after first dose (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.36-3.27) suggests that unmeasured confounding led to downward bias in the vaccine effectiveness estimate., Interpretation: Evidence from this test-negative study of the effectiveness of CoronaVac was mixed, and likely affected by bias in this setting. Administration of at least one vaccine dose showed effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the setting of epidemic Gamma variant transmission. However, the low estimated effectiveness of the two-dose schedule underscores the need to maintain non-pharmaceutical interventions while vaccination campaigns with CoronaVac are being implemented., Funding: Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Municipal Health Secretary of Manaus; Fundação de Vigilância em Saúde do Amazonas., Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests., (© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Comparison of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case numbers over time and between locations is complicated by limits to virological testing to confirm severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. The proportion of tested individuals who have tested positive (test-positive proportion, TPP) can potentially be used to inform trends in incidence. We propose a model for testing in a population experiencing an epidemic of COVID-19 and derive an expression for TPP in terms of well-defined parameters related to testing and presence of other pathogens causing COVID-19-like symptoms. In the absence of dramatic shifts of testing practices in time or between locations, the TPP is positively correlated with the incidence of infection. We show that the proportion of tested individuals who present COVID-19-like symptoms encodes information similar to the TPP but has different relationships with the testing parameters, and can thus provide additional information regarding dynamic changes in TPP and incidence. Finally, we compare data on confirmed cases and TPP from US states up to October 2020. We conjecture why states might have higher or lower TPP than average. Collection of symptom status and age/risk category of tested individuals can increase the utility of TPP in assessing the state of the pandemic in different locations and times., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) remain the only widely available tool for controlling the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We estimated weekly values of the effective basic reproductive number (R eff ) using a mechanistic metapopulation model and associated these with county-level characteristics and NPIs in the United States (US). Interventions that included school and leisure activities closure and nursing home visiting bans were all associated with a median R eff below 1 when combined with either stay at home orders (median R eff 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.39) or face masks (median R eff 0.97, 95% CI 0.58-1.39). While direct causal effects of interventions remain unclear, our results suggest that relaxation of some NPIs will need to be counterbalanced by continuation and/or implementation of others.

Analysis of immunogenicity data is a critical component of vaccine development, providing a biological basis to support any observed protection from vaccination. Conventional methods for analyzing immunogenicity data use either post-vaccination titer or change in titer, often defined as a binary variable using a threshold. These methods are simple to implement but can be limited especially in populations experiencing natural exposure to the pathogen. A mixture model can overcome the limitations of the conventional approaches by jointly modeling the probability of an immune response and the level of the immune marker among those who respond. We apply a mixture model to analyze the immunogenicity of an oral, pentavalent rotavirus vaccine in a cohort of children enrolled into a placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy trial in Niger. Among children with undetectable immunoglobulin A (IgA) at baseline, vaccinated children had 5.2-fold (95% credible interval (CrI) 3.7, 8.3) higher odds of having an IgA response than placebo children, but the mean log IgA among vaccinated responders was 0.9-log lower (95% CrI 0.6, 1.3) than among placebo responders. This result implies that the IgA response generated by vaccination is weaker than that generated by natural infection. Multivariate logistic regression of seroconversion defined by ≥ 3-fold rise in IgA similarly found increased seroconversion among vaccinated children, but could not demonstrate lower IgA among those who seroresponded. In addition, we found that the vaccine was less immunogenic among children with detectable IgA pre-vaccination, and that pre-vaccination infant serum IgG and mother's breast milk IgA modified the vaccine immunogenicity. Increased maternal antibodies were associated with weaker IgA response in placebo and vaccinated children, with the association being stronger among vaccinated children. The mixture model is a powerful and flexible method for analyzing immunogenicity data and identifying modifiers of vaccine response and independent predictors of immune response., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

To rapidly evaluate the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, prioritizing vaccine trial sites in areas with high expected disease incidence can speed endpoint accrual and shorten trial duration. Mathematical and statistical forecast models can inform the process of site selection, integrating available data sources and facilitating comparisons across locations. We recommend the use of ensemble forecast modeling - combining projections from independent modeling groups - to guide investigators identifying suitable sites for COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials. We describe an appropriate structure for this process, including minimum requirements, suggested output, and a user-friendly tool for displaying results. Importantly, we advise that this process be repeated regularly throughout the trial, to inform decisions about enrolling new participants at existing sites with waning incidence versus adding entirely new sites. These types of data-driven models can support the implementation of flexible efficacy trials tailored to the outbreak setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Many public health responses and modeled scenarios for COVID-19 outbreaks caused by SARS-CoV-2 assume that infection results in an immune response that protects individuals from future infections or illness for some amount of time. The presence or absence of protective immunity due to infection or vaccination (when available) will affect future transmission and illness severity. Here, we review the scientific literature on antibody immunity to coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2 as well as the related SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and endemic human coronaviruses (HCoVs). We reviewed 2,452 abstracts and identified 491 manuscripts relevant to 5 areas of focus: 1) antibody kinetics, 2) correlates of protection, 3) immunopathogenesis, 4) antigenic diversity and cross-reactivity, and 5) population seroprevalence. While further studies of SARS-CoV-2 are necessary to determine immune responses, evidence from other coronaviruses can provide clues and guide future research.

Efforts to reduce the impact of stunting have been largely independent of interventions to reduce the impact of wasting, despite the observation that the conditions can coexist in the same child and increase risk of death. To optimize the management of malnourished children-who can be wasted, stunted, or both-the relationship between stunting and wasting should be elaborated. We aimed to describe the relationship between concurrent weight and height gain during and after rehabilitation from severe wasting. We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized trial for the outpatient treatment of severe wasting, including 1,542 children who recovered and were followed for 12 weeks. We described the overlap of stunting and severe wasting and the change in stunting over time. We showed the relationship between concurrent weight and height gain using adjusted generalized estimating equations and calculated the mean rate of change in weight-for-height z score (WHZ) and height-for-age z score (HAZ) during and after rehabilitation. At baseline, 79% (n = 1,223/1,542) and 49% (n = 757/1,542) of children were stunted and severely stunted, respectively. Prevalence increased over time among children <24 months. During rehabilitation when weight was not yet fully recovered, we found rapid WHZ gain but limited HAZ gain. Following successful rehabilitation, WHZ gain slowed. The rate of HAZ gain was negative after rehabilitation but increased relative to the period during treatment. The potential relationship between weight and height gain calls for increased coverage of wasting treatment to not only prevent child mortality but also reduce linear growth faltering., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Seasonal epidemics of bacterial meningitis in the African Meningitis Belt carry a high burden of disease and mortality. Reactive mass vaccination is used as a control measure during epidemics, but the time taken to gain immunity from the vaccine reduces the flexibility and effectiveness of these campaigns. Targeted reactive antibiotic prophylaxis could be used to supplement reactive mass vaccination and further reduce the incidence of meningitis, and the potential effectiveness and efficiency of these strategies should be explored., Methods and Findings: Data from an outbreak of meningococcal meningitis in Niger, caused primarily by Neisseria meningitidis serogroup C, is used to estimate clustering of meningitis cases at the household and village level. In addition, reactive antibiotic prophylaxis and reactive vaccination strategies are simulated to estimate their potential effectiveness and efficiency, with a focus on the threshold and spatial unit used to declare an epidemic and initiate the intervention. There is village-level clustering of suspected meningitis cases after an epidemic has been declared in a health area. Risk of suspected meningitis among household contacts of a suspected meningitis case is no higher than among members of the same village. Village-wide antibiotic prophylaxis can target subsequent cases in villages: across of range of parameters pertaining to how the intervention is performed, up to 220/672 suspected cases during the season are potentially preventable. On the other hand, household prophylaxis targets very few cases. In general, the village-wide strategy is not very sensitive to the method used to declare an epidemic. Finally, village-wide antibiotic prophylaxis is potentially more efficient than mass vaccination of all individuals at the beginning of the season, and than the equivalent reactive vaccination strategy., Conclusions: Village-wide antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered and tested further as a response against outbreaks of meningococcal meningitis in the Meningitis Belt, as a supplement to reactive mass vaccination., Competing Interests: ML has received consulting/honoraria from Pfizer, Merck, Antigen Discovery, and Affinivax, and research support through his institution from Pfizer.

Power considerations for trials evaluating vaccines against infectious diseases are complicated by indirect protective effects of vaccination. While cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) are less statistically efficient than individually randomized controlled trials (iRCTs), a cRCT's ability to measure direct and indirect vaccine effects may mitigate the loss of efficiency due to clustering. Within cRCTs, the number and size of clusters affects 3 determinants of power: the effect size being measured, disease incidence, and intracluster correlation. We simulated trials conducted in a collection of small communities to assess how indirect protection and clustering affected the power of cRCTs and iRCTs during an emerging epidemic. Across diverse parameters, we found that within the same trial population, cRCTs were never more powerful than iRCTs, although the difference can be small. We also identified 2 effects that attenuated the loss of cRCT power traditionally associated with increased cluster size. First, if enrollment of fewer, larger clusters was performed to achieve higher vaccine coverage within vaccinated communities, this increased the effect to be measured and, consequently, power. Second, the greater rate of imported transmission in larger communities may increase the attack rate and similarly mitigate loss of power relative to a trial in many, smaller communities.

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis for contacts of meningitis cases is not recommended during outbreaks in the African meningitis belt. We assessed the effectiveness of single-dose oral ciprofloxacin administered to household contacts and in village-wide distributions on the overall attack rate (AR) in an outbreak of meningococcal meningitis., Methods and Findings: In this 3-arm, open-label, cluster-randomized trial during a meningococcal meningitis outbreak in Madarounfa District, Niger, villages notifying a suspected case were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to standard care (the control arm), single-dose oral ciprofloxacin for household contacts within 24 hours of case notification, or village-wide distribution of ciprofloxacin within 72 hours of first case notification. The primary outcome was the overall AR of suspected meningitis after inclusion. A random sample of 20 participating villages was enrolled to document any changes in fecal carriage prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae before and after the intervention. Between April 22 and May 18, 2017, 49 villages were included: 17 to the control arm, 17 to household prophylaxis, and 15 to village-wide prophylaxis. A total of 248 cases were notified in the study after the index cases. The AR was 451 per 100,000 persons in the control arm, 386 per 100,000 persons in the household prophylaxis arm (t test versus control p = 0.68), and 190 per 100,000 persons in the village-wide prophylaxis arm (t test versus control p = 0.032). The adjusted AR ratio between the household prophylaxis arm and the control arm was 0.94 (95% CI 0.52-1.73, p = 0.85), and the adjusted AR ratio between the village-wide prophylaxis arm and the control arm was 0.40 (95% CI 0.19‒0.87, p = 0.022). No adverse events were notified. Baseline carriage prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae was 95% and of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae was >90%, and did not change post-intervention. One limitation of the study was the small number of cerebrospinal fluid samples sent for confirmatory testing., Conclusions: Village-wide distribution of single-dose oral ciprofloxacin within 72 hours of case notification reduced overall meningitis AR. Distributions of ciprofloxacin could be an effective tool in future meningitis outbreak responses, but further studies investigating length of protection, effectiveness in urban settings, and potential impact on antimicrobial resistance patterns should be carried out., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02724046., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: RFG is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine.

Infectious crop diseases spreading over large agricultural areas pose a threat to food security. Aggressive strains of the obligate pathogenic fungus Puccinia graminis f.sp. tritici (Pgt), causing the crop disease wheat stem rust, have been detected in East Africa and the Middle East, where they lead to substantial economic losses and threaten livelihoods of farmers. The majority of commercially grown wheat cultivars worldwide are susceptible to these emerging strains, which pose a risk to global wheat production, because the fungal spores transmitting the disease can be wind-dispersed over regions and even continents 1-11 . Targeted surveillance and control requires knowledge about airborne dispersal of pathogens, but the complex nature of long-distance dispersal poses significant challenges for quantitative research 12-14 . We combine international field surveys, global meteorological data, a Lagrangian dispersion model and high-performance computational resources to simulate a set of disease outbreak scenarios, tracing billions of stochastic trajectories of fungal spores over dynamically changing host and environmental landscapes for more than a decade. This provides the first quantitative assessment of spore transmission frequencies and amounts amongst all wheat producing countries in Southern/East Africa, the Middle East and Central/South Asia. We identify zones of high air-borne connectivity that geographically correspond with previously postulated wheat rust epidemiological zones (characterized by endemic disease and free movement of inoculum) 10,15 , and regions with genetic similarities in related pathogen populations 16,17 . We quantify the circumstances (routes, timing, outbreak sizes) under which virulent pathogen strains such as 'Ug99' 5,6 pose a threat from long-distance dispersal out of East Africa to the large wheat producing areas in Pakistan and India. Long-term mean spore dispersal trends (predominant direction, frequencies, amounts) are summarized for all countries in the domain (Supplementary Data). Our mechanistic modelling framework can be applied to other geographic areas, adapted for other pathogens and used to provide risk assessments in real-time 3 .