Malaria continues to be a major source of morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. Timely, accurate, and effective case management is critical to malaria control. Proactive community case management (ProCCM) is a new strategy in which a community health worker "sweeps" a village, visiting households at defined intervals to proactively provide diagnostic testing and treatment if indicated. Pilot experiments have shown the potential of ProCCM for controlling malaria transmission; identifying the best strategy for administering ProCCM in terms of interval timings and number of sweeps could lead to further reductions in malaria infections. We developed an agent-based simulation to model malaria transmission and the impact of various ProCCM strategies. The model was validated using symptomatic prevalence data from a ProCCM pilot study in Senegal. Various ProCCM strategies were tested to evaluate the potential for reducing parasitologically confirmed symptomatic malaria cases in the Senegal setting. We found that weekly ProCCM sweeps during a 21-week transmission season could reduce cases by 36.3% per year compared with no sweeps. Alternatively, two initial fortnightly sweeps, seven weekly sweeps, and finally four fortnightly sweeps (13 sweeps total) could reduce confirmed malaria cases by 30.5% per year while reducing the number of diagnostic tests and corresponding costs by about 33%. Under a highly seasonal transmission setting, starting the sweeps early with longer duration and higher frequency would increase the impact of ProCCM, though with diminishing returns. The model is flexible and allows decision-makers to evaluate implementation strategies incorporating sweep frequency, time of year, and available budget.

BACKGROUND: Despite the successes of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, substantial challenges remain in eradicating the poliovirus. The Sabin-strain (live-attenuated) virus in oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) can revert to circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) in under-vaccinated communities, regain neurovirulence and transmissibility, and cause paralysis outbreaks. Since the cessation of type 2-containing OPV (OPV2) in 2016, there have been cVDPV type 2 (cVDPV2) outbreaks in four out of six geographical World Health Organization regions, making these outbreaks a significant public health threat. Preparing for and responding to cVDPV2 outbreaks requires an updated understanding of how different factors, such as outbreak responses with the novel type of OPV2 (nOPV2) and the existence of under-vaccinated areas, affect the disease spread. METHODS: We built a differential-equation-based model to simulate the transmission of cVDPV2 following reversion of the Sabin-strain virus in prolonged circulation. The model incorporates vaccinations by essential (routine) immunization and supplementary immunization activities (SIAs), the immunity induced by different poliovirus vaccines, and the reversion process from Sabin-strain virus to cVDPV. The model's outcomes include weekly cVDPV2 paralytic case counts and the die-out date when cVDPV2 transmission stops. In a case study of Northwest and Northeast Nigeria, we fit the model to data on the weekly cVDPV2 case counts with onset in 2018-2021. We then used the model to test the impact of different outbreak response scenarios during a prediction period of 2022-2023. The response scenarios included no response, the planned response (based on Nigeria's SIA calendar), and a set of hypothetical responses that vary in the dates at which SIAs started. The planned response scenario included two rounds of SIAs that covered almost all areas of Northwest and Northeast Nigeria except some under-vaccinated areas (e.g., Sokoto). The hypothetical response scenarios involved two, three, and four rounds of SIAs that covered the whole Northwest and Northeast Nigeria. All SIAs in tested outbreak response scenarios used nOPV2. We compared the outcomes of tested outbreak response scenarios in the prediction period. RESULTS: Modeled cVDPV2 weekly case counts aligned spatiotemporally with the data. The prediction results indicated that implementing the planned response reduced total case counts by 79% compared to no response, but did not stop the transmission, especially in under-vaccinated areas. Implementing the hypothetical response scenarios involving two rounds of nOPV2 SIAs that covered all areas further reduced cVDPV2 case counts in under-vaccinated areas by 91-95% compared to the planned response, with greater impact from completing the two rounds at an earlier time, but it did not stop the transmission. When the first two rounds were completed in early April 2022, implementing two additional rounds stopped the transmission in late January 2023. When the first two rounds were completed six weeks earlier (i.e., in late February 2022), implementing one (two) additional round stopped the transmission in early February 2023 (late November 2022). The die out was always achieved last in the under-vaccinated areas of Northwest and Northeast Nigeria. CONCLUSIONS: A differential-equation-based model of poliovirus transmission was developed and validated in a case study of Northwest and Northeast Nigeria. The results highlighted (i) the effectiveness of nOPV2 in reducing outbreak case counts; (ii) the need for more rounds of outbreak response SIAs that covered all of Northwest and Northeast Nigeria in 2022 to stop the cVDPV2 outbreaks; (iii) that persistent transmission in under-vaccinated areas delayed the progress towards stopping outbreaks; and (iv) that a quicker outbreak response would avert more paralytic cases and require fewer SIA rounds to stop the outbreaks.

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. In 2020, the COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized hundreds of thousands of specific predictions from more than 50 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. This manuscript systematically evaluates 23 models that regularly submitted forecasts of reported weekly incident COVID-19 mortality counts in the US at the state and national level. One of these models was a multi-model ensemble that combined all available forecasts each week. The performance of individual models showed high variability across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Half of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. In combining the forecasts from all teams, the ensemble showed the best overall probabilistic accuracy of any model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions farther into the future, with probabilistic accuracy at a 20-week horizon more than 5 times worse than when predicting at a 1-week horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks.Competing Interest StatementAV, MC, and APP report grants from Metabiota Inc outside the submitted work.Funding StatementFor teams that reported receiving funding for their work, we report the sources and disclosures below. CMU-TimeSeries: CDC Center of Excellence, gifts from Google and Facebook. CU-select: NSF DMS-2027369 and a gift from the Morris-Singer Foundation. COVIDhub: This work has been supported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1U01IP001122) and the National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119582). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of CDC, NIGMS or the National Institutes of Health. Johannes Bracher was supported by the Helmholtz Foundation via the SIMCARD Information& Data Science Pilot Project. Tilmann Gneiting gratefully acknowledges support by the Klaus Tschira Foundation. DDS-NBDS: NSF III-1812699. EPIFORECASTS-ENSEMBLE1: Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z) GT_CHHS-COVID19: William W. George Endowment, Virginia C. and Joseph C. Mello Endowments, NSF DGE-1650044, NSF MRI 1828187, research cyberinfrastructure resources and services provided by the Partnership for an Advanced Computing Environment (PACE) at Georgia Tech, and the following benefactors at Georgia Tech: Andrea Laliberte, Joseph C. Mello, Richard Rick E. & Charlene Zalesky, and Claudia & Paul Raines GT-DeepCOVID: CDC MInD-Healthcare U01CK000531-Supplement. NSF (Expeditions CCF-1918770, CAREER IIS-2028586, RAPID IIS-2027862, Medium IIS-1955883, NRT DGE-1545362), CDC MInD program, ORNL and funds/computing resources from Georgia Tech and GTRI. IHME: This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as funding from the state of Washington and the National Science Foundation (award no. FAIN: 2031096). IowaStateLW-STEM: Iowa State University Plant Sciences Institute Scholars Program, NSF DMS-1916204, NSF CCF-1934884, Laurence H. Baker Center for Bioinformatics and Biological Statistics. JHU_IDD-CovidSP: State of California, US Dept of Health and Human Services, US Dept of Homeland Security, US Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, Johns Hopkins Health System, Office of the Dean at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University Modeling and Policy Hub, Centers fo Disease Control and Prevention (5U01CK000538-03), University of Utah Immunology, Inflammation, & Infectious Disease Initiative (26798 Seed Grant). LANL-GrowthRate: LANL LDRD 20200700ER. MOBS-GLEAM_COVID: COVID Supplement CDC-HHS-6U01IP001137-01. NotreDame-mobility and NotreDame-FRED: NSF RAPID DEB 2027718 UA-EpiCovDA: NSF RAPID Grant # 2028401. UCSB-ACTS: NSF RAPID IIS 2029626. UCSD-NEU: Google Faculty Award, DARPA W31P4Q-21-C-0014, COVID Supplement CDC-HHS-6U01IP001137-01. UMass-MechBayes: NIGMS R35GM119582, NSF 1749854. UMich-RidgeTfReg: The University of Michigan Physics Department and the University of Michigan Office of Research.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:UMass-Amherst IRBAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data and code referred to in the manuscript are publicly available. https://github.com/reichlab/covid19-forecast-hub/ https://github.com/reichlab/covidEnsembles https://zoltardata.com/project/44

SignificanceThis paper compares the probabilistic accuracy of short-term forecasts of reported deaths due to COVID-19 during the first year and a half of the pandemic in the United States. Results show high variation in accuracy between and within stand-alone models and more consistent accuracy from an ensemble model that combined forecasts from all eligible models. This demonstrates that an ensemble model provided a reliable and comparatively accurate means of forecasting deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic that exceeded the performance of all of the models that contributed to it. This work strengthens the evidence base for synthesizing multiple models to support public-health action.

Objective: Priorities of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 6|18 Initiative include outpatient asthma self-management education (ASME) and home-based asthma visits (home visit) as interventions for children with poorly-controlled asthma. ASME and home visit intervention programs are currently not widely available. This project was to assess the economic sustainability of these programs for state asthma control programs reimbursed by Medicaid.Methods: We used a simulation model based on parameters from the literature and Medicaid claims, controlling for regression to the mean. We modeled scenarios under various selection criteria based on healthcare utilization and age to forecast the return on investment (ROI) using data from New York. The resulting tool is available in Excel or Python.Results: Our model projected health improvement and cost savings for all simulated interventions. Compared against home visits alone, the simulated ASME alone intervention had a higher ROI for all healthcare utilization and age scenarios. Savings were primarily highest in simulated program participants who had two or more asthma-related emergency department visits or one inpatient visit compared to those participants who had one or more asthma-related emergency department visits. Segmenting the selection criteria by age did not significantly change the results.Conclusions: This model forecasts reduced healthcare costs and improved health outcomes as a result of ASME and home visits for children with high urgent healthcare utilization (more than two emergency department visits or one inpatient hospitalization) for asthma. Utilizing specific selection criteria, state based asthma control programs can improve health and reduce healthcare costs.

BACKGROUND: Between 2002 and 2013, the organs of thirteen deceased donors with infectious encephalitis were transplanted, causing infections in 23 recipients. As a consequence, organs from donors showing symptoms of encephalitis (increased probability of infectious encephalitis (IPIE) organs) might be declined. We had previously characterized the risk of IPIE organs using data available to most transplant teams and not requiring special diagnostic tests. If the probability of infection is low, the benefits of a transplant from a donor with suspected infectious encephalitis might outweigh the risk and could be lifesaving for some transplant candidates. METHODS: Using organ transplant data and Cox Proportional Hazards models, we determined liver donor and recipient characteristics predictive of post-transplant or waitlist survival and generated 5-year survival probability curves. We also calculated expected waiting times for an organ offer based on transplant candidate characteristics. Using a limited set of actual cases of infectious encephalitis transmission via transplant, we estimated post-transplant survival curves given an organ from an IPIE donor. RESULTS: 54% (1,256) of patients registered from 2002-2006 who died or were removed from the waiting list due to deteriorated condition within 1 year could have had an at least marginal estimated benefit by accepting an IPIE liver with some probability of infection, with the odds increasing to 86% of patients if the probability of infection was low (5% or less). Additionally, 54% (1,252) were removed from the waiting list prior to their estimated waiting time for a non-IPIE liver and could have benefited from an IPIE liver. CONCLUSION: Improved allocation and utilization of IPIE livers could be achieved by evaluating the patient-specific trade-offs between (i) accepting an IPIE liver and (ii) remaining on the waitlist and accepting a non-IPIE liver after the estimated waiting time. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

We used an ensemble of statistical methods to build a model that predicts kidney transplant survival and identifies important predictive variables. The proposed model achieved better performance, measured by Harrell's concordance index, than the Estimated Post Transplant Survival model used in the kidney allocation system in the U.S., and other models published recently in the literature. The model has a five-year concordance index of 0.724 (in comparison, the concordance index is 0.697 for the Estimated Post Transplant Survival model, the state of the art currently in use). It combines predictions from random survival forests with a Cox proportional hazards model. The rankings of importance for the model's variables differ by transplant recipient age. Better survival predictions could eventually lead to more efficient allocation of kidneys and improve patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There were 13 documented clusters of infectious encephalitis transmission via organ transplant from deceased donors to recipients during 2002-2013. Hence, organs from donors diagnosed with encephalitis are often declined due to concerns about the possibility of infection, given that there is no quick and simple test to detect causes of infectious encephalitis. METHODS: We constructed a database containing cases of infectious and non-infectious encephalitis. Using statistical imputation, cross-validation, and regression techniques, we determined deceased organ donor characteristics, including demographics, signs, symptoms, physical exam, and laboratory findings, predictive of infectious versus non-infectious encephalitis, and developed a calculator which assesses risk of infection. RESULTS: Using up to 12 predictive patient characteristics, (with a minimum of 3, depending on what information is available), the calculator provides the probability that a donor may have infectious versus non-infectious encephalitis, improving the prediction accuracy over current practices. These characteristics include gender, fever, immunocompromised state (other than HIV), cerebrospinal fluid elevation, altered mental status, psychiatric features, cranial nerve abnormality, meningeal signs, focal motor weakness, Babinski's sign, movement disorder, and sensory abnormalities. CONCLUSION: In the absence of definitive diagnostic testing in a potential organ donor, infectious encephalitis can be predicted with a risk score. The risk calculator presented in this paper represents a prototype, establishing a framework that can be expanded to other infectious diseases transmissible through solid organ transplantation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.