| Literature DB >> 34326999 |
Li-Lin Liang1,2, Hsu-Sung Kuo2,3, Hsiu J Ho3, Chun-Ying Wu2,3,4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scientists have demonstrated the efficacy of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in randomized controlled trials. However, the extent to which reductions in COVID-19 case fatality ratio (CFR) are attributable to mass vaccination in the real world remains unclear. This study evaluated the association of COVID-19 vaccine coverage with CFR on a global scale.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34326999 PMCID: PMC8285768 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.11.05019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Glob Health ISSN: 2047-2978 Impact factor: 4.413
Figure 1Trend for the percentage of countries with a vaccination programme. This figure presents the percentage of sample countries with a vaccination programme on a weekly basis since December 2020. The earliest week of vaccination was recorded as 9-15 December 2020. As of 20 April 2021, all 90 countries introduced COVID-19 vaccination programmes.
Figure 2Trend for the percentage of the world population (90 countries) that was vaccinated. This figure presents the trend of the vaccine coverage measured as the number of people who received at least one vaccine dose per 100 people in the total population of 90 countries. As of 20 April 2021, approximately 7.7% of the populations were vaccinated. Those countries had approximately 6.4 billion people, accounting for 83% of the world population in 2020.
Descriptive statistics of model variables*
| Variable | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total deaths attributed to COVID-19 per 100 confirmed cases | 2.08 | 1.38 | 0.05 | 9.87 |
| Total number of people who received at least one vaccine dose per 10 people in the total population | 0.30 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 6.20 |
| Government effectiveness score (-2.5 to 2.5)† | 0.36 | 0.86 | -1.34 | 2.22 |
| Transport infrastructure quality index (1-5)‡ | 2.97 | 0.66 | 1.82 | 4.37 |
| Population aged 65 or older (%) | 11.61 | 6.81 | 1.16 | 28.00 |
| Hospital beds per 1000 population | 3.29 | 2.63 | 0.30 | 13.05 |
| Gross domestic product per capita (log) | 9.84 | 1.03 | 6.97 | 11.49 |
| Government response stringency index (0-100)§ | 61.94 | 14.07 | 19.44 | 88.89 |
| Time to containment policy since first death (weeks) | -4.56 | 4.83 | -26.86 | 1.00 |
| Total tests for COVID-19 per 100 people | 39.07 | 60.77 | 0.33 | 583.20 |
| Total confirmed cases of COVID-19 per 100 people | 2.44 | 2.34 | 0.00 | 11.16 |
| Africa | 0.14 | 0.34 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Asia | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Europe | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| North America | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| South America | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Oceania | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
SD – standard deviation
*Note: The sample had 90 countries and 2200 country-week observations.
†Government effectiveness score measures the quality of public and civil services, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government’s commitment to such policies (2.5 = greatest effectiveness).
‡Transport infrastructure quality index measures the quality of the trade and transport infrastructure (5 = highest quality).
§Government response stringency index measures the intensity of nine containment policies: school closures, workplace closures, cancellation of public events, restrictions on gathering size, closures of public transport, stay-at-home requirements, restrictions on internal movement, restrictions on international travel, and coordinated public information campaigns (100 = strictest response).
Results from random-effects regression for COVID-19 case fatality ratio (log)*
| Predictors | Coef. | Std. Err. | (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vaccine coverage | -0.076 | 0.025 | (-0.126, -0.027) | 0.002 |
| Government effectiveness score | -0.076 | 0.014 | (-0.102, -0.049) | <0.001 |
| Transport infrastructure quality index | 0.075 | 0.019 | (0.038, 0.113) | <0.001 |
| Population aged 65 or older (%) | 0.054 | 0.024 | (0.008, 0.100) | 0.022 |
| Hospital beds per 1000 population | 0.001 | 0.038 | (-0.073, 0.075) | 0.981 |
| Gross domestic product per capita (log) | -0.042 | 0.016 | (-0.073, -0.010) | 0.009 |
| Government response stringency index | -0.010 | 0.014 | (-0.037, 0.017) | 0.478 |
| Time to containment policy (weeks) | 0.045 | 0.018 | (0.010, 0.080) | 0.012 |
| Total tests for COVID-19 per 100 people | 0.001 | 0.001 | (0.000, 0.003) | 0.045 |
| Confirmed cases per 100 people last week | 0.017 | 0.015 | (-0.013, 0.047) | 0.267 |
*Note: The sample had 90 countries and 2200 country-week observations. The standard errors were clustered at the country level. The R-squared value was 0.51. For convenience of interpretation, we multiplied the following variables by 10: government effectiveness score, infrastructure quality index, and gross domestic product per capita (log). Thus the corresponding coefficient should be interpreted on the basis of a 0.1 incremental increase in these variables. In addition, we divided the original value of government response stringency index by 10; thus its coefficient should be interpreted on the basis of a 10 incremental increase. The model included the continent in which a country is located and country random effects.
Figure 3Results of subgroup analyses, by level of government effectiveness, transport infrastructure quality, and share of population aged 65 or older. For each country characteristic, countries were ranked and divided into three groups: high (green), medium (yellow), and low (red), with an equal size. The second column displays the percentage change in case fatality ratio (CFR) associated with a 10% increase in vaccine coverage, which was illustrated as the solid circle in the figure. All three regressions were conducted by using the full sample, 2200 country-week observations.
Results from analysis of dynamic relationships using different intervals of vaccine coverage*
| Predictors | Coef. | Std. err. | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interval of vaccine coverage (No. of vaccinated people per 10 people in the population) (reference group: 0) | ||||
| <0.05 | -0.060 | 0.037 | -0.132, 0.012 | 0.101 |
| 0.05-0.1 | -0.054 | 0.035 | -0.122, 0.014 | 0.120 |
| 0.1-0.2 | -0.043 | 0.030 | -0.102, 0.017 | 0.159 |
| 0.2-0.4 | -0.027 | 0.029 | -0.084, 0.029 | 0.347 |
| 0.4-0.8 | -0.038 | 0.035 | -0.107, 0.030 | 0.272 |
| 0.8-1.6 | -0.127 | 0.046 | -0.218, -0.036 | 0.006 |
| 1.6-3.2 | -0.212 | 0.065 | -0.339, -0.085 | 0.001 |
| ≥3.2 | -0.313 | 0.103 | -0.515, -0.110 | 0.002 |
CI – confidence interval
*Note: The sample had 90 countries and 2200 country-week observations. Vaccine coverage was measured by the number of people received at least one vaccine dose per 10 people in the population. The standard errors were clustered at the country level. The R-squared value was 0.52. The model included country random effects and variables for country characteristics, nonpharmaceutical interventions, and continent indictors described in .
Figure 4Dynamic associations between vaccine coverage and the case fatality ratio. This figure shows the percentage change in case fatality ratio (CFR) associated with different intervals of vaccine coverage. Values of CFR change on the y-axis were the estimated coefficients of binary indicator for interval of vaccine coverage provided in . According to , the reduced CFR was statistically significant when the vaccine coverage per 1000 people fell in the interval of 80-160, 160-320, and ≥320.