A method for prioritizing risk groups for early SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination, By the Numbers

  1. Clement J. McDonald
  2. Seo H. Baik
  3. Zhaonian Zheng
  4. Liz Amos

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Given the limited supply of two COVID-19 vaccines, it will be important to choose which risk groups to prioritize for vaccination in order to get the most health benefits from that supply.

Method

In order to help decide how to get the maximum health yield from this limited supply, we implemented a logistic regression model to predict COVID-19 death risk by age, race, and sex and did the same to predict COVID-19 case risk.

Results

Our predictive model ranked all demographic groups by COVID-19 death risk. It was highly concentrated in some demographic groups, e.g. 85+ year old Black, Non-Hispanic patients suffered 1,953 deaths per 100,000. If we vaccinated the 17 demographic groups at highest COVID-19 death ranked by our logistic model, it would require only 3.7% of the vaccine supply needed to vaccinate all the United States, and yet prevent 47% of COVID-19 deaths. Nursing home residents had a higher COVID-19 death risk at 5,200 deaths/100,000, more than our highest demographic risk group. Risk of prison residents and health care workers (HCW) were lower than that of our demographic groups with the highest risks.

We saw much less concentration of COVID-19 case risk in any demographic groups compared to the high concentration of COVID-19 death in some such groups. We should prioritize vaccinations with the goal of reducing deaths, not cases, while the vaccine supply is low.

Conclusion

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines protect against severe COVID-19 infection and thus against COVID-19 death per vaccine studies. Allocating at least some of the early vaccine supplies to high risk demographic groups could maximize lives saved. Our model, and the risk estimate it produced, could help states define their vaccine allocation rules.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.18.20248504: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.18.20248504v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.18.20248504v1 on medRxiv