Explore the vast range of titles available.

Between February and June 2021, the initial wild-type strains of SARS-CoV-2 were supplanted in Ontario, Canada, by new variants of concern (VOCs), first those with the N501Y mutation (i.e., Alpha/B1.1.17, Beta/B.1.351 and Gamma/P.1 variants) and then the Delta/B.1.617 variant. The increased transmissibility of these VOCs has been documented, but knowledge about their virulence is limited. We used Ontario’s COVID-19 case data to evaluate the virulence of these VOCs compared with non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, as measured by risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. We created a retrospective cohort of people in Ontario who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were screened for VOCs, with dates of test report between Feb. 7 and June 27, 2021. We constructed mixed-effect logistic regression models with hospitalization, ICU admission and death as outcome variables. We adjusted models for age, sex, time, vaccination status, comorbidities and pregnancy status. We included health units as random intercepts. Our cohort included 212 326 people. Compared with non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42%–63%) for hospitalization, 89% (95% CI 67%–117%) for ICU admission and 51% (95% CI 30%–78%) for death. Increased risk with the Delta variant was more pronounced at 108% (95% CI 78%–140%) for hospitalization, 235% (95% CI 160%–331%) for ICU admission and 133% (95% CI 54%–231%) for death. The increasing virulence of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs will lead to a considerably larger, and more deadly, pandemic than would have occurred in the absence of the emergence of VOCs.

Physical-distancing interventions are being used in Canada to slow the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but it is not clear how effective they will be. We evaluated how different nonpharmaceutical interventions could be used to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and reduce the burden on the health care system. We used an age-structured compartmental model of COVID-19 transmission in the population of Ontario, Canada. We compared a base case with limited testing, isolation and quarantine to scenarios with the following: enhanced case finding, restrictive physical-distancing measures, or a combination of enhanced case finding and less restrictive physical distancing. Interventions were either implemented for fixed durations or dynamically cycled on and off, based on projected occupancy of intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We present medians and credible intervals from 100 replicates per scenario using a 2-year time horizon. We estimated that 56% (95% credible interval 42%–63%) of the Ontario population would be infected over the course of the epidemic in the base case. At the epidemic peak, we projected 107 000 (95% credible interval 60 760–149 000) cases in hospital (non-ICU) and 55 500 (95% credible interval 32 700–75 200) cases in ICU. For fixed-duration scenarios, all interventions were projected to delay and reduce the height of the epidemic peak relative to the base case, with restrictive physical distancing estimated to have the greatest effect. Longer duration interventions were more effective. Dynamic interventions were projected to reduce the proportion of the population infected at the end of the 2-year period and could reduce the median number of cases in ICU below current estimates of Ontario’s ICU capacity. Without substantial physical distancing or a combination of moderate physical distancing with enhanced case finding, we project that ICU resources would be overwhelmed. Dynamic physical distancing could maintain health-system capacity and also allow periodic psychological and economic respite for populations.

The speed of vaccine development has been a singular achievement during the COVID-19 pandemic, although uptake has not been universal. Vaccine opponents often frame their opposition in terms of the rights of the unvaccinated. We sought to explore the impact of mixing of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated people. We constructed a simple susceptible–infectious–recovered compartmental model of a respiratory infectious disease with 2 connected subpopulations: people who were vaccinated and those who were unvaccinated. We simulated a spectrum of patterns of mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups that ranged from random mixing to complete like-with-like mixing (complete assortativity), in which people have contact exclusively with others with the same vaccination status. We evaluated the dynamics of an epidemic within each subgroup and in the population as a whole. We found that the risk of infection was markedly higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people under all mixing assumptions. The contact-adjusted contribution of unvaccinated people to infection risk was disproportionate, with unvaccinated people contributing to infections among those who were vaccinated at a rate higher than would have been expected based on contact numbers alone. We found that as like-with-like mixing increased, attack rates among vaccinated people decreased from 15% to 10% (and increased from 62% to 79% among unvaccinated people), but the contact-adjusted contribution to risk among vaccinated people derived from contact with unvaccinated people increased. Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to people who are unvaccinated, their choices affect risk of viral infection among those who are vaccinated in a manner that is disproportionate to the portion of unvaccinated people in the population.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297093.].

We previously demonstrated that when vaccines prevent infection, the dynamics of mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated sub-populations is such that use of imperfect vaccines markedly decreases risk for vaccinated people, and for the population overall. Risks to vaccinated people accrue disproportionately from contact with unvaccinated people. In the context of the emergence of Omicron SARS-CoV-2 and evolving understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, we updated our analysis to evaluate whether our earlier conclusions remained valid. We modified a previously published Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered (SIR) compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 with two connected sub-populations: vaccinated and unvaccinated, with non-random mixing between groups. Our expanded model incorporates diminished vaccine efficacy for preventing infection with the emergence of Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants, waning immunity, the impact of prior immune experience on infectivity, \"hybrid\" effects of infection in previously vaccinated individuals, and booster vaccination. We evaluated the dynamics of an epidemic within each subgroup and in the overall population over a 10-year time horizon. Even with vaccine efficacy as low as 20%, and in the presence of waning immunity, the incidence of COVID-19 in the vaccinated subpopulation was lower than that among the unvaccinated population across the full 10-year time horizon. The cumulative risk of infection was 3-4 fold higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people, and unvaccinated people contributed to infection risk among vaccinated individuals at twice the rate that would have been expected based on the frequency of contacts. These findings were robust across a range of assumptions around the rate of waning immunity, the impact of \"hybrid immunity\", frequency of boosting, and the impact of prior infection on infectivity in unvaccinated people. Although the emergence of the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 has diminished the protective effects of vaccination against infection with SARS-CoV-2, updating our earlier model to incorporate loss of immunity, diminished vaccine efficacy and a longer time horizon, does not qualitatively change our earlier conclusions. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 continues to diminish the risk of infection among vaccinated people and in the population as a whole. By contrast, the risk of infection among vaccinated people accrues disproportionately from contact with unvaccinated people.

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to reduce risk of infection as well as severe disease among those with breakthrough infection in adults. The latter effect is particularly important as immune evasion by Omicron variants appears to have made vaccines less effective at preventing infection. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the protection conferred by mRNA vaccination against hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 in adolescent and pediatric populations. We retrospectively created a cohort of reported SARS-CoV-2 case records from Ontario's Public Health Case and Contact Management Solution among those aged 4 to 17 linked to vaccination records from the COVaxON database on January 19, 2022. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the association between vaccination and hospitalization among SARS-CoV-2 cases prior to and during the emergence of Omicron. We included 62 hospitalized and 27,674 non-hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 cases, with disease onset from May 28, 2021 to December 4, 2021 (Pre-Omicron) and from December 23, 2021 to January 9, 2022 (Omicron). Among adolescents, two mRNA vaccine doses were associated with an 85% (aOR = 0.15; 95% CI: [0.04, 0.53]; p<0.01) lower likelihood of hospitalization among SARS-CoV-2 cases caused by Omicron. Among children, one mRNA vaccine dose was associated with a 79% (aOR = 0.21; 95% CI: [0.03, 0.77]; p<0.05) lower likelihood of hospitalization among SARS-CoV-2 cases caused by Omicron. The calculation of E-values, which quantifies how strong an unmeasured confounder would need to be to nullify our findings, suggest that these effects are unlikely to be explained by unmeasured confounding. Despite immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2 variants, vaccination continues to be associated with a lower likelihood of hospitalization among adolescent and pediatric Omicron (B.1.1.529) SARS-CoV-2 cases, even when the vaccines do not prevent infection. Continued efforts are needed to increase vaccine uptake among adolescent and pediatric populations.

Mathematical modeling suggests that rapid diagnostics that report antibiotic susceptibility have the potential to extend the usefulness of existing antibiotics for treatment of gonorrhea compared with the current guidelines for empiric 2-drug treatment. Abstract Background Increasing antibiotic resistance limits treatment options for gonorrhea. We examined the impact of a hypothetical point-of-care (POC) test reporting antibiotic susceptibility profiles on slowing resistance spread. Methods A mathematical model describing gonorrhea transmission incorporated resistance emergence probabilities and fitness costs associated with resistance based on characteristics of ciprofloxacin (A), azithromycin (B), and ceftriaxone (C). We evaluated time to 1% and 5% prevalence of resistant strains among all isolates with the following: (1) empiric treatment (B and C), and treatment guided by POC tests determining susceptibility to (2) A only and (3) all 3 antibiotics. Results Continued empiric treatment without POC testing was projected to result in >5% of isolates being resistant to both B and C within 15 years. Use of either POC test in 10% of identified cases delayed this by 5 years. The 3 antibiotic POC test delayed the time to reach 1% prevalence of triply-resistant strains by 6 years, whereas the A-only test resulted in no delay. Results were less sensitive to assumptions about fitness costs and test characteristics with increasing test uptake. Conclusions Rapid diagnostics reporting antibiotic susceptibility may extend the usefulness of existing antibiotics for gonorrhea treatment, but ongoing monitoring of resistance patterns will be critical.

Communicable disease outbreaks of novel or existing pathogens threaten human health around the globe. It would be desirable to rapidly characterize such outbreaks and develop accurate projections of their duration and cumulative size even when limited preliminary data are available. Here we develop a mathematical model to aid public health authorities in tracking the expansion and contraction of outbreaks with explicit representation of factors (other than population immunity) that may slow epidemic growth. The Incidence Decay and Exponential Adjustment (IDEA) model is a parsimonious function that uses the basic reproduction number R0, along with a discounting factor to project the growth of outbreaks using only basic epidemiological information (e.g., daily incidence counts). Compared to simulated data, IDEA provides highly accurate estimates of total size and duration for a given outbreak when R0 is low or moderate, and also identifies turning points or new waves. When tested with an outbreak of pandemic influenza A (H1N1), the model generates estimated incidence at the i+1(th) serial interval using data from the i(th) serial interval within an average of 20% of actual incidence. This model for communicable disease outbreaks provides rapid assessments of outbreak growth and public health interventions. Further evaluation in the context of real-world outbreaks will establish the utility of IDEA as a tool for front-line epidemiologists.

Communicable disease surveillance typically relies on case counts for estimates of risk, and counts can be strongly influenced by testing rates. In the Canadian province of Ontario, testing rates varied markedly by age, sex, geography and time over the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We applied a standardization-based approach to test-adjustment to better understand pandemic dynamics from 2020 to 2022, and to better understand when test-adjustment is necessary for accurate estimation of risk. Case counts were adjusted for under-testing using a previously published standardization-based approach that estimates case numbers that would have been expected if the entire population was tested at the same rate as most-tested age and sex groups. After adjustment for under-testing, estimated case counts increased threefold and test-adjusted cases correlated better with SARS-CoV-2-attributed death than crude reported cases. Test-adjusted epidemic curves suggested, in contrast to reported case counts, that the first two pandemic waves were equivalent in size, and identified three distinct pandemic waves in 2022, due to the emergence of Omicron variants. Under-reporting was greatest in younger individuals, with variation explained partly by testing rates and prevalence of multigenerational households; test-adjustment resulted in little change in the epidemic curve during time periods when per capita testing rates exceeded 5.5%. We conclude that standardization-based adjustment for differential testing by age and sex results in a different understanding of the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario. This methodology may offer a means of deriving adjusted estimates of infection incidence from surveillance data, accounting for fluctuations due to changing test practices.