Back

Prophylactic and reactive vaccination strategies for healthcare workers against MERS-CoV

Laydon, D. J.; Cauchemez, S. J.; Hinsley, W. R.; Bhatt, S.; Ferguson, N. M.

2022-04-06 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.04.06.22273497 medRxiv
Show abstract

Several vaccines candidates are in development against Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV), which remains a major public health concern. Using individual-level data on the 2013-2014 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia epidemic, we employ counterfactual analysis on inferred transmission trees ("who-infected-whom") to assess potential vaccine impact. We investigate the conditions under which prophylactic "proactive" campaigns would outperform "reactive" campaigns (i.e. vaccinating either before or in response to the next outbreak), focussing on healthcare workers. Spatial scale is crucial: if vaccinating healthcare workers in response to outbreaks at their hospital only, proactive campaigns perform better, unless efficacy has waned significantly. However, campaigns that react at regional or national level consistently outperform proactive campaigns. Measures targeting the animal reservoir reduce transmission linearly, albeit with wide uncertainty. Substantial reduction of MERS-CoV morbidity and mortality is possible when vaccinating healthcare workers, underlining the need for at-risk countries to stockpile vaccines when available.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 1%
18.6%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.0%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Clinical Infectious Diseases
◐ 235 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.3%
Similar papers in this journal
4
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 24%
6.8%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Vaccine
○ 203 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.3%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
● 235 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.3%
7
Epidemics
○ 116 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.1%
8
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.1%
9
BMC Medicine
○ 176 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
10
Epidemiology and Infection
◐ 89 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
11
PLOS Medicine
● 110 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
12
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
13
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.7%
14
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.7%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 30%
1.5%
16
BMC Infectious Diseases
○ 133 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
Science
● 477 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
18
Communications Medicine
○ 113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
19
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
● 466 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 72 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
Vaccines
○ 198 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
International Journal of Epidemiology
◐ 88 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
23
Nature Medicine
○ 125 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
PLOS Pathogens
● 820 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.