Routine asymptomatic testing strategies for COVID-19 have been proposed to prevent outbreaks in high-risk healthcare environments. We used simulation modeling to evaluate the optimal frequency of viral testing. We found that routine testing substantially reduces risk of outbreaks, but may need to be as frequent as twice weekly.

Vaccines may reduce the burden of antimicrobial resistance, in part by preventing infections for which treatment often includes the use of antibiotics^1-4. However, the effects of vaccination on antibiotic consumption remain poorly understood-especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the burden of antimicrobial resistance is greatest⁵. Here we show that vaccines that have recently been implemented in the World Health Organization's Expanded Programme on Immunization reduce antibiotic consumption substantially among children under five years of age in LMICs. By analysing data from large-scale studies of households, we estimate that pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and live attenuated rotavirus vaccines confer 19.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.4-43.4%) and 11.4% (4.0-18.6%) protection against antibiotic-treated episodes of acute respiratory infection and diarrhoea, respectively, in age groups that experience the greatest disease burden attributable to the vaccine-targeted pathogens^6,7. Under current coverage levels, pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccines prevent 23.8 million and 13.6 million episodes of antibiotic-treated illness, respectively, among children under five years of age in LMICs each year. Direct protection resulting from the achievement of universal coverage targets for these vaccines could prevent an additional 40.0 million episodes of antibiotic-treated illness. This evidence supports the prioritization of vaccines within the global strategy to combat antimicrobial resistance⁸.

This study uses US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Health Service Corps data to describe incident cases and outbreaks of influenza, varicella, and mumps in 22 US ICE detention centers between 2017 and March 2020.

Mathematical modeling studies are frequently conducted to guide policy in global health. However, the contribution of mathematical modeling studies to World Health Organization (WHO) guideline recommendations, and the quality of evidence contributed by these studies remains unknown. We conducted a systematic review of the WHO Guidelines Review Committee database to identify guideline recommendations that included evidence from mathematical modeling studies since inception of the Guidelines Review Committee on 1 December, 2007. We included WHO guideline recommendations citing a mathematical modeling study in the primary evidence base. We defined a mathematical model as a framework that predicted epidemiologic, health or economic impact of an intervention or decision in the clinical or public health context. The primary outcome was inclusion of evidence from mathematical modeling studies in a guideline recommendation. We evaluated each unique modeling study across multiple domains of quality. Between 1 December 2007 and 1 April 2019, the WHO Guidelines Review Committee approved 154 guidelines providing 1619 guideline recommendations. Mathematical modeling studies informed 46 WHO guidelines (29.9%) and 101 unique guideline recommendations (6.2%). Modeling evidence addressed topics related to infectious diseases in 38 guidelines (82.6%) and 81 recommendations (80.2%), most commonly for HIV and tuberculosis. Evidence from modeling studies was assessed in the GRADE evidence profile for 12 recommendations (12.9%) and GRADE evidence-to-decision framework for 45 recommendations (44.6%). Modeling-informed recommendations were more likely than other recommendations within the same guidelines to be issued with a "conditional" rather than "strong" strength of recommendation (53.5% versus 37.8%), and the evidence underlying modeling-informed recommendations was more likely to be assessed as very low quality (41.6% versus 24.1%). Upon review of individual modeling studies, we estimated that 33.8% of models performed a calibration, 29.4% of models performed a validation of results, and 20.6% of models reported a change in the study conclusion in the sensitivity analysis. While policy recommendations in WHO guidelines are informed by evidence from modeling studies, the validity of modeling studies included in guidelines development is heterogeneous. Quality assessment is needed to support the evaluation and incorporation of evidence from mathematical modeling studies in guidelines development.

Background

COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in homeless shelters across the US, highlighting an urgent need to identify the most effective infection control strategy to prevent future outbreaks.

Methods

We developed a microsimulation model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a homeless shelter and calibrated it to data from cross-sectional polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) surveys conducted during COVID-19 outbreaks in five shelters in three US cities from March 28 to April 10, 2020. We estimated the probability of averting a COVID-19 outbreak when an exposed individual is introduced into a representative homeless shelter of 250 residents and 50 staff over 30 days under different infection control strategies, including daily symptom-based screening, twice-weekly PCR testing and universal mask wearing.

Results

The proportion of PCR-positive residents and staff at the shelters with observed outbreaks ranged from 2.6% to 51.6%, which translated to basic reproduction number ( R 0 ) estimates of 2.9–6.2. The probability of averting an outbreak diminished with higher transmissibility ( R 0 ) within the simulated shelter and increasing incidence in the local community. With moderate community incidence (~30 confirmed cases/1,000,000 people/day), the estimated probabilities of averting an outbreak in a low-risk ( R 0 =1.5), moderate-risk ( R 0 =2.9), and high-risk ( R 0 =6.2) shelter were, respectively: 0.35, 0.13 and 0.04 for daily symptom-based screening; 0.53, 0.20, and 0.09 for twice-weekly PCR testing; 0.62, 0.27 and 0.08 for universal masking; and 0.74, 0.42 and 0.19 for these strategies combined.

Conclusions

In high-risk homeless shelter environments and locations with high community incidence of COVID-19, even intensive infection control strategies (incorporating daily symptom-screening, frequent PCR testing and universal mask wearing) are unlikely to prevent outbreaks, suggesting a need for non-congregate housing arrangements for people experiencing homelessness. In lower-risk environments, combined interventions should be employed to reduce outbreak risk.

Background

COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in homeless shelters across the US, highlighting an urgent need to identify the most effective infection control strategy to prevent future outbreaks.

Methods

We developed a microsimulation model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a homeless shelter and calibrated it to data from cross-sectional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) surveys conducted during COVID-19 outbreaks in five homeless shelters in three US cities from March 28 to April 10, 2020. We estimated the probability of averting a COVID-19 outbreak when an exposed individual is introduced into a representative homeless shelter of 250 residents and 50 staff over 30 days under different infection control strategies, including daily symptom-based screening, twice-weekly PCR testing, and universal mask wearing.

Results

The proportion of PCR-positive residents and staff at the shelters with observed outbreaks ranged from 2.6 to 51.6%, which translated to the basic reproduction number (R₀) estimates of 2.9-6.2. With moderate community incidence (~ 30 confirmed cases/1,000,000 people/day), the estimated probabilities of averting an outbreak in a low-risk (R₀ = 1.5), moderate-risk (R₀ = 2.9), and high-risk (R₀ = 6.2) shelter were respectively 0.35, 0.13, and 0.04 for daily symptom-based screening; 0.53, 0.20, and 0.09 for twice-weekly PCR testing; 0.62, 0.27, and 0.08 for universal masking; and 0.74, 0.42, and 0.19 for these strategies in combination. The probability of averting an outbreak diminished with higher transmissibility (R₀) within the simulated shelter and increasing incidence in the local community.

Conclusions

In high-risk homeless shelter environments and locations with high community incidence of COVID-19, even intensive infection control strategies (incorporating daily symptom screening, frequent PCR testing, and universal mask wearing) are unlikely to prevent outbreaks, suggesting a need for non-congregate housing arrangements for people experiencing homelessness. In lower-risk environments, combined interventions should be employed to reduce outbreak risk.

Background

Routine viral testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 infection might facilitate safe airline travel during the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate global spread of the virus. However, the effectiveness of these test-and-travel strategies to reduce passenger risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-level transmission remains unknown.

Methods

In this simulation study, we developed a microsimulation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a cohort of 100 000 US domestic airline travellers using publicly available data on COVID-19 clinical cases and published natural history parameters to assign individuals one of five health states of susceptible to infection, latent period, early infection, late infection, or recovered. We estimated a per-day risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 corresponding to a daily incidence of 150 infections per 100 000 people. We assessed five testing strategies: (1) anterior nasal PCR test within 3 days of departure, (2) PCR within 3 days of departure and 5 days after arrival, (3) rapid antigen test on the day of travel (assuming 90% of the sensitivity of PCR during active infection), (4) rapid antigen test on the day of travel and PCR test 5 days after arrival, and (5) PCR test 5 days after arrival. Strategies 2 and 4 included a 5-day quarantine after arrival. The travel period was defined as 3 days before travel to 2 weeks after travel. Under each scenario, individuals who tested positive before travel were not permitted to travel. The primary study outcome was cumulative number of infectious days in the cohort over the travel period without isolation or quarantine (population-level transmission risk), and the key secondary outcome was the number of infectious people detected on the day of travel (passenger risk of infection).

Findings

We estimated that in a cohort of 100 000 airline travellers, in a scenario with no testing or screening, there would be 8357 (95% uncertainty interval 6144-12831) infectious days with 649 (505-950) actively infectious passengers on the day of travel. The pre-travel PCR test reduced the number of infectious days from 8357 to 5401 (3917-8677), a reduction of 36% (29-41) compared with the base case, and identified 569 (88% [76-92]) of 649 actively infectious travellers on the day of flight; the addition of post-travel quarantine and PCR reduced the number of infectious days to 2520 days (1849-4158), a reduction of 70% (64-75) compared with the base case. The rapid antigen test on the day of travel reduced the number of infectious days to 5674 (4126-9081), a reduction of 32% (26-38) compared with the base case, and identified 560 (86% [83-89]) actively infectious travellers; the addition of post-travel quarantine and PCR reduced the number of infectious days to 3124 (2356-495), a reduction of 63% (58-66) compared with the base case. The post-travel PCR alone reduced the number of infectious days to 4851 (3714-7679), a reduction of 42% (35-49) compared with the base case.

Interpretation

Routine asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 before travel can be an effective strategy to reduce passenger risk of infection during travel, although abbreviated quarantine with post-travel testing is probably needed to reduce population-level transmission due to importation of infection when travelling from a high to low incidence setting.

Funding

University of California, San Francisco.

In September 2022, the Drug Discovery Unit at the University of Dundee, UK, organised an international meeting at the Wellcome Collection in London to explore the current clinical situation and challenges associated with treating schistosomiasis. The aim of this meeting was to discuss the need for new treatments in view of the clinical situation and to ascertain what the key requirements would be for any potential new anti-schistosomals. This information will be essential to inform ongoing drug discovery efforts for schistosomiasis. We also discussed the potential drug discovery pathway and associated criteria for progressing compounds to the clinic. To date, praziquantel (PZQ) is the only drug available to treat all species causing schistosomiasis, but it is often unable to completely clear parasites from an infected patient, partially due to its inactivity against juvenile worms. PZQ-mediated mass drug administration campaigns conducted in endemic areas (e.g., sub-Saharan Africa, where schistosomiasis is primarily prevalent) have contributed to reducing the burden of disease but will not eliminate the disease as a public health problem. The potential for Schistosoma to develop resistance towards PZQ, as the sole treatment available, could become a concern. Consequently, new anthelmintic medications are urgently needed, and this Perspective aims to capture some of the learnings from our discussions on the key criteria for new treatments.