ArticleThe Lancet. Global health2023
Impact of proactive and reactive vaccination strategies for health-care workers against MERS-CoV: a mathematical modelling study.
Article in The Lancet. Global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating the impact of decreasing vaccination response times for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in low- and middle-income countries.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
- Quantifying the impact of a broadly protective sarbecovirus vaccine in a future SARS-X pandemic.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Mucosal immunity in upper and lower respiratory tract to MERS-CoV.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Vaccination strategies for mitigation of MERS-CoV outbreaks.The Lancet. Global health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral vaccine candidates are in development against MERS-CoV, which remains a major public health concern. In anticipation of available MERS-CoV vaccines, we examine strategies for their optimal deployment among health-care workers.
methodsUsing data from the 2013-14 Saudi Arabia epidemic, we use a counterfactual analysis on inferred transmission trees (who-infected-whom analysis) to assess the potential impact of vaccination campaigns targeting health-care workers, as quantified by the proportion of cases or deaths averted. We investigate the conditions under which proactive campaigns (ie vaccinating in anticipation of the next outbreak) would outperform reactive campaigns (ie vaccinating in response to an unfolding outbreak), considering vaccine efficacy, duration of vaccine protection, effectiveness of animal reservoir control measures, wait (time between vaccination and next outbreak, for proactive campaigns), reaction time (for reactive campaigns), and spatial level (hospital, regional, or national, for reactive campaigns). We also examine the relative efficiency (cases averted per thousand doses) of different strategies.
findingsThe spatial scale of reactive campaigns is crucial. Proactive campaigns outperform campaigns that vaccinate health-care workers in response to outbreaks at their hospital, unless vaccine efficacy has waned significantly. However, reactive campaigns at the regional or national levels consistently outperform proactive campaigns, regardless of vaccine efficacy. When considering the number of cases averted per vaccine dose administered, the rank order is reversed: hospital-level reactive campaigns are most efficient, followed by regional-level reactive campaigns, with national-level and proactive campaigns being least efficient. If the number of cases required to trigger reactive vaccination increases, the performance of hospital-level campaigns is greatly reduced; the impact of regional-level campaigns is variable, but that of national-level campaigns is preserved unless triggers have high thresholds.
interpretationSubstantial reduction of MERS-CoV morbidity and mortality is possible when vaccinating only health-care workers, underlining the need for countries at risk of outbreaks to stockpile vaccines when available.
fundingUK Medical Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, UK Academy of Medical Sciences, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Schmidt Foundation, and Investissement d'Avenir France.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.