Does prioritization of COVID vaccine distribution to communities with the highest COVID burden reduce health inequity?

IF 4 3区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
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 ,&nbsp;Anna Bershteyn ,&nbsp;Rienna Russo ,&nbsp;Jessica Mcgillen ,&nbsp;Julia Sisti ,&nbsp;Charles Ko ,&nbsp;Jaimie Shaff ,&nbsp;Remle Newton-Dame ,&nbsp;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.
优先向疫情负担最重的社区分发COVID - 19疫苗是否能减少卫生不公平?
受早期SARS-CoV-2疫情影响最严重的社区积累了更多的免疫力,但优先为这些社区接种疫苗可以减少健康差距。最优疫苗分配取决于对不平等的厌恶,即愿意牺牲总体健康利益以增加分配公平。我们评估了疫苗优先策略对纽约市COVID-19感染和死亡率的影响。方法采用基于纽约市社区数据校准的易感暴露-感染恢复COVID-19传播模型,比较三种疫苗分配策略:1)跨社区统一(无优先级);2)对受灾最严重的社区进行优先排序(基于暴露的优先排序);3)优先考虑受灾最严重的社区,同时保持其他社区的缓解措施(基于暴露的优先级加上缓解)。该模型考虑了疫苗效力、推广速度、疫苗前免疫和异质社区暴露风险。从2020年3月1日到第一次疫苗供应(2020年12月14日),我们将42个纽约市社区按COVID-19累积死亡率分为五分之一。我们在一个不平等厌恶范围内(阿特金森指数,ε= 0-20)对总死亡人数和等分布等效(EDE)死亡人数(即考虑到公平和效率的同等偏好的死亡人数)进行了建模。结果:与不接种疫苗相比,基于压力的优先级加上缓解措施估计可避免全市范围内最多的COVID-19死亡(32.5 %),不考虑对不平等厌恶的调整。与没有优先级相比,基于暴露的优先级估计可使全市死亡人数减少45% %,但在阿特金森指数为10时,经ed调整的死亡人数增加2.5% %。在阿特金森指数≥ 6时,基于暴露的优先级优于无优先级。结论:在受影响最严重的社区中优先接种疫苗,并在具有最大优势的社区中进行持续的缓解努力,从而最大限度地减少了死亡率和不平等现象。应急小组在分配有限的药品供应时,应考虑社区继续开展非药物缓解工作的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Infection and Public Health
Journal of Infection and Public Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -INFECTIOUS DISEASES
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.50%
发文量
203
审稿时长
96 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信