Background A substantial scale-up in public health response is needed to control the unprecedented Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in West Africa. Current international commitments seek to expand intervention capacity in three areas: new EVD Treatment Centers (ETCs); case ascertainment through contact tracing; and household protective kit allocation. Methods We developed a transmission model of Ebola virus that we fitted to reported EVD cases and deaths in Montserrado County, Liberia. We used this model to evaluate effectiveness of expanding ETCs, improving case ascertainment, and allocating protective kits for controlling the outbreak in Montserrado. Findings We estimated the basic reproductive number for EVD in Montserrado to be 2·49 [2·38–2·60]. We expect that allocating 4,800 additional ETC beds and increasing case ascertainment fivefold in November can avert 77312 [68400–85870] cases relative to the status quo by 15 December. Complementing these measures with protective kit allocation increases the expectation as high as 97940 [90096–105606] cases. If deployed by 15 October, equivalent interventions would have been expected to avert 137432 [129736–145874] cases. If delayed to 15 November, we expect the interventions will at best avert 53957 [49963–60490] cases. Interpretation The number of ETC beds needed to effectively control EVD in Montserrado substantially exceeds the total pledged by the United States to West Africa. Accelerated case ascertainment is required to maximize effectiveness of expanding ETC capacity. Distributing protective kits can further augment EVD prevention. Our findings highlight the rapidly closing window of opportunity for controlling the outbreak and averting a catastrophic toll of EVD cases and deaths. Funding NIH: U01-GM087719, U01-GM105627, K24-DA017072

BackgroundAs Zika virus continues to spread, decisions regarding resource allocations to control the outbreak underscore the need for a tool to weigh policies according to their cost and the health burden they could avert. For example, to combat the current Zika outbreak the US President requested the allocation of $1.8 billion from Congress in February 2016.Methodology/Principal FindingsIllustrated through an interactive tool, we evaluated how the number of Zika cases averted, the period during pregnancy in which Zika infection poses a risk of microcephaly, and probabilities of microcephaly and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) impact the cost at which an intervention is cost-effective. From Northeast Brazilian microcephaly incidence data, we estimated the probability of microcephaly in infants born to Zika-infected women (0.49% to 2.10%). We also estimated the probability of GBS arising from Zika infections in Brazil (0.02% to 0.06%) and Colombia (0.08%). We calculated that each microcephaly and GBS case incurs the loss of 29.95 DALYs and 1.25 DALYs per case, as well as direct medical costs for Latin America and the Caribbean of $91,102 and $28,818, respectively. We demonstrated the utility of our cost-effectiveness tool with examples evaluating funding commitments by Costa Rica and Brazil, the US presidential proposal, and the novel approach of genetically modified mosquitoes. Our analyses indicate that the commitments and the proposal are likely to be cost-effective, whereas the cost-effectiveness of genetically modified mosquitoes depends on the country of implementation.Conclusions/SignificanceCurrent estimates from our tool suggest that the health burden from microcephaly and GBS warrants substantial expenditures focused on Zika virus control. Our results justify the funding committed in Costa Rica and Brazil and many aspects of the budget outlined in the US president’s proposal. As data continue to be collected, new parameter estimates can be customized in real-time within our user-friendly tool to provide updated estimates on cost-effectiveness of interventions and inform policy decisions in country-specific settings.

BackgroundAs the Zika virus epidemic continues to spread internationally, countries such as the United States must determine how much to invest in prevention, control, and response. Fundamental to these decisions is quantifying the potential economic burden of Zika under different scenarios.Methodology/Principle findingsTo inform such decision making, our team developed a computational model to forecast the potential economic burden of Zika across six states in the US (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) which are at greatest risk of Zika emergence, under a wide range of attack rates, scenarios and circumstances. In order to accommodate a wide range of possibilities, different scenarios explored the effects of varying the attack rate from 0.01% to 10%. Across the six states, an attack rate of 0.01% is estimated to cost $183.4 million to society ($117.1 million in direct medical costs and $66.3 million in productivity losses), 0.025% would result in $198.6 million ($119.4 million and $79.2 million), 0.10% would result in $274.6 million ($130.8 million and $143.8 million) and 1% would result in $1.2 billion ($268.0 million and $919.2 million).ConclusionsOur model and study show how direct medical costs, Medicaid costs, productivity losses, and total costs to society may vary with different attack rates across the six states and the circumstances at which they may exceed certain thresholds (e.g., Zika prevention and control funding allocations that are being debated by the US government). A Zika attack rate of 0.3% across the six states at greatest risk of Zika infection, would result in total costs that exceed $0.5 billion, an attack rate of 1% would exceed $1 billion, and an attack rate of 2% would exceed $2 billion.

The efficacy of influenza vaccines, currently at 44%, is limited by the rapid antigenic evolution of the virus and a manufacturing process that can lead to vaccine mismatch. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) recently identified the development of a universal influenza vaccine with an efficacy of at least 75% as a high scientific priority. The US Congress approved $130 million funding for the 2019 fiscal year to support the development of a universal vaccine, and another $1 billion over 5 y has been proposed in the Flu Vaccine Act. Using a model of influenza transmission, we evaluated the population-level impacts of universal influenza vaccines distributed according to empirical age-specific coverage at multiple scales in the United States. We estimate that replacing just 10% of typical seasonal vaccines with 75% efficacious universal vaccines would avert ∼5.3 million cases, 81,000 hospitalizations, and 6,300 influenza-related deaths per year. This would prevent over $1.1 billion in direct health care costs compared to a typical season, based on average data from the 2010–11 to 2018–19 seasons. A complete replacement of seasonal vaccines with universal vaccines is projected to prevent 17 million cases, 251,000 hospitalizations, 19,500 deaths, and $3.5 billion in direct health care costs. States with high per-hospitalization medical expenses along with a large proportion of elderly residents are expected to receive the maximum economic benefit. Replacing even a fraction of seasonal vaccines with universal vaccines justifies the substantial cost of vaccine development.

No abstract