Hae-Young Kim , Anna Bershteyn , Rienna Russo , Jessica Mcgillen , Julia Sisti , Charles Ko , Jaimie Shaff , Remle Newton-Dame , R. Scott Braithwaite
{"title":"Does prioritization of COVID vaccine distribution to communities with the highest COVID burden reduce health inequity?","authors":"Hae-Young Kim , Anna Bershteyn , Rienna Russo , Jessica Mcgillen , Julia Sisti , Charles Ko , Jaimie Shaff , Remle Newton-Dame , R. Scott Braithwaite","doi":"10.1016/j.jiph.2025.102904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Communities hardest-hit by early SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks accrued more immunity, but prioritizing these communities for vaccination could reduce health disparities. Optimal vaccine allocation depends on inequality aversion, i.e., willingness to trade off aggregate health benefits to increase distributional equity. We evaluated the impact of vaccine prioritization strategies on COVID-19 infections and mortality in New York City (NYC).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used a susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered COVID-19 transmission model calibrated to NYC neighborhood-level data to compare three vaccine distribution strategies: 1) uniform across neighborhoods (<em>no prioritization</em>); 2) prioritizing hardest-hit neighborhoods (<em>exposure-based prioritization</em>); and 3) prioritizing hardest-hit neighborhoods while maintaining mitigation measures in other neighborhoods (<em>exposure-based prioritization plus mitigation</em>). The model accounted for vaccine efficacy, rollout pace, pre-vaccine immunity, and heterogeneous neighborhood exposure risk. We categorized 42 NYC neighborhoods into quintiles of cumulative COVID-19 mortality rates from March 1, 2020, until first vaccine availability (December 14, 2020). We modeled total deaths and equally-distributed-equivalent (EDE) deaths (i.e., the equally preferred number of deaths, considering equity and efficiency) across a range of inequality aversion (Atkinson’s index, ε=0–20).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Exposure-based prioritization plus mitigation was estimated to avert the most citywide COVID-19 deaths (32.5 %) relative to no vaccination, regardless of adjustment for inequality aversion. Relative to <em>no prioritization</em>, <em>exposure-based prioritization</em> was estimated to avert 45 % fewer citywide deaths but generated 2.5 % more EDE-adjusted deaths at an Atkinson index of 10. <em>Exposure-based prioritization</em> outperformed <em>no prioritization</em> at an Atkinson index of ≥ 6.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Prioritizing vaccination within the hardest-hit communities, paired with sustained mitigation efforts in communities with the greatest advantage, resulted in the greatest overall reduction in mortality and inequities. Emergency response teams should consider a community’s ability to continue non-pharmaceutical mitigation efforts when allocating limited pharmaceutical supplies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16087,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection and Public Health","volume":"18 11","pages":"Article 102904"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034125002539","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Communities hardest-hit by early SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks accrued more immunity, but prioritizing these communities for vaccination could reduce health disparities. Optimal vaccine allocation depends on inequality aversion, i.e., willingness to trade off aggregate health benefits to increase distributional equity. We evaluated the impact of vaccine prioritization strategies on COVID-19 infections and mortality in New York City (NYC).
Methods
We used a susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered COVID-19 transmission model calibrated to NYC neighborhood-level data to compare three vaccine distribution strategies: 1) uniform across neighborhoods (no prioritization); 2) prioritizing hardest-hit neighborhoods (exposure-based prioritization); and 3) prioritizing hardest-hit neighborhoods while maintaining mitigation measures in other neighborhoods (exposure-based prioritization plus mitigation). The model accounted for vaccine efficacy, rollout pace, pre-vaccine immunity, and heterogeneous neighborhood exposure risk. We categorized 42 NYC neighborhoods into quintiles of cumulative COVID-19 mortality rates from March 1, 2020, until first vaccine availability (December 14, 2020). We modeled total deaths and equally-distributed-equivalent (EDE) deaths (i.e., the equally preferred number of deaths, considering equity and efficiency) across a range of inequality aversion (Atkinson’s index, ε=0–20).
Results
Exposure-based prioritization plus mitigation was estimated to avert the most citywide COVID-19 deaths (32.5 %) relative to no vaccination, regardless of adjustment for inequality aversion. Relative to no prioritization, exposure-based prioritization was estimated to avert 45 % fewer citywide deaths but generated 2.5 % more EDE-adjusted deaths at an Atkinson index of 10. Exposure-based prioritization outperformed no prioritization at an Atkinson index of ≥ 6.
Conclusions
Prioritizing vaccination within the hardest-hit communities, paired with sustained mitigation efforts in communities with the greatest advantage, resulted in the greatest overall reduction in mortality and inequities. Emergency response teams should consider a community’s ability to continue non-pharmaceutical mitigation efforts when allocating limited pharmaceutical supplies.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Infection and Public Health, first official journal of the Saudi Arabian Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences and the Saudi Association for Public Health, aims to be the foremost scientific, peer-reviewed journal encompassing infection prevention and control, microbiology, infectious diseases, public health and the application of healthcare epidemiology to the evaluation of health outcomes. The point of view of the journal is that infection and public health are closely intertwined and that advances in one area will have positive consequences on the other.
The journal will be useful to all health professionals who are partners in the management of patients with communicable diseases, keeping them up to date. The journal is proud to have an international and diverse editorial board that will assist and facilitate the publication of articles that reflect a global view on infection control and public health, as well as emphasizing our focus on supporting the needs of public health practitioners.
It is our aim to improve healthcare by reducing risk of infection and related adverse outcomes by critical review, selection, and dissemination of new and relevant information in the field of infection control, public health and infectious diseases in all healthcare settings and the community.