Significance This 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.

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. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multi-model ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of different research groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-week horizon 3-5 times larger 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. Significance Statement This 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 US. 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.

No abstract

This article has an accompanying continuing medical education activity, also eligible for MOC credit, on page e17 (https://www. gastrojournal.org/cme/home). Learning Objective: Upon completion of this CME activity, successful learners will be able to state the expected short-and long-term outcomes of a patient with severe, medically refractory, acute alcohol-associated hepatitis presented with 2 different transplant eligibility policies: early (ie, without minimum period of sobriety) versus delayed (eg, 6-month wait) liver transplantation. BACKGROUND & AIMS: Early liver transplantation (without requiring a minimum period of sobriety) for severe alcoholassociated hepatitis (AH) is controversial: many centers delay eligibility until a specific period of sobriety (such as 6 months) has been achieved. To inform ongoing debate and policy, we modeled long-term outcomes of early vs delayed liver transplantation for patients with AH. METHODS: We developed a mathematical model to simulate early vs delayed liver transplantation for patients with severe AH and different amounts of alcohol use after transplantation: abstinence, slip (alcohol use followed by sobriety), or sustained use. Mortality of patients before transplantation was determined by joint-effect model (based on Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] and Lille scores). We estimated life expectancies of patients receiving early vs delayed transplantation (6-month wait before placement on the waitlist) and life years lost attributable to alcohol use after receiving the liver transplant. RESULTS: Patients offered early liver transplantation were estimated to have an average life expectancy of 6.55 life years, compared with an average life expectancy of 1.46 life years for patients offered delayed liver transplantation (4.49-fold increase). The net increase in life expectancy from offering early transplantation was highest for patients with Lille scores of 0.50-0.82 and MELD scores of 32 or more. Patients who were offered early transplantation and had no alcohol use afterward were predicted to survive 10.85 years compared with 3.62 years for patients with sustained alcohol use after transplantation (7.23 life years lost). Compared with delayed transplantation, early liver transplantation increased survival times in all simulated scenarios and combinations of Lille and MELD scores. CONCLUSIONS: In a modeling study of assumed carefully selected patients with AH, early vs delayed liver transplantation (6 months of abstinence from alcohol before transplantation) increased survival times of patients, regardless of estimated risk of sustained alcohol use after transplantation. These findings support early liver transplantation for patients with severe AH. The net increase in life expectancy was maintained in all simulated extreme scenarios but should be confirmed in prospective studies. Sustained alcohol use after transplantation significantly reduced but did not eliminate the benefits of early transplantation. Strategies are needed to prevent and treat posttransplanta...

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is 15 times more prevalent among persons in Spain’s prisons than in the community. Recently, Spain initiated a pilot program, JAILFREE-C, to treat HCV in prisons using direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). Our aim was to identify a cost-effective strategy to scale-up HCV treatment in all prisons. Using a validated agent-based model, we simulated the HCV landscape in Spain’s prisons considering disease transmission, screening, treatment, and prison-community dynamics. Costs and disease outcomes under status quo were compared with strategies to scale-up treatment in prisons considering prioritization (HCV fibrosis stage vs. HCV prevalence of prisons), treatment capacity (2,000/year vs. unlimited) and treatment initiation based on sentence lengths (>6 months vs. any). Scaling-up treatment by treating all incarcerated persons irrespective of their sentence length provided maximum health benefits–preventing 10,200 new cases of HCV, and 8,300 HCV-related deaths between 2019–2050; 90% deaths prevented would have occurred in the community. Compared with status quo, this strategy increased quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) by 69,700 and costs by €670 million, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,600/QALY. Scaling-up HCV treatment with DAAs for the entire Spanish prison population, irrespective of sentence length, is cost-effective and would reduce HCV burden.

Individuals are prioritized based on their risk profiles when allocating limited vaccine stocks during an influenza pandemic. Computationally expensive but realistic agent-based simulations and fast but stylized compartmental models are typically used to derive effective vaccine allocation strategies. A detailed comparison of these two approaches, however, is often omitted. We derive age-specific vaccine allocation strategies to mitigate a pandemic influenza outbreak in Seattle by applying derivative-free optimization to an agent-based simulation and also to a compartmental model. We compare the strategies derived by these two approaches under various infection aggressiveness and vaccine coverage scenarios. We observe that both approaches primarily vaccinate school children, however they may allocate the remaining vaccines in different ways. The vaccine allocation strategies derived by using the agent-based simulation are associated with up to 70% decrease in total cost and 34% reduction in the number of infections compared to the strategies derived by using the compartmental model. Nevertheless, the latter approach may still be competitive for very low and/or very high infection aggressiveness. Our results provide insights about potential differences between the vaccine allocation strategies derived by using agent-based simulations and those derived by using compartmental models.

This simulation modeling study projects COVID-19 deaths between March 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, in each of the 50 US states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico assuming different dates of lifting of mask mandates and nonpharmacologic interventions.

With the recent emergence of the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of SARS-CoV-2 in the U.S., many states are seeing rising cases and hospitalizations after a period of steady decline. As We used the COVID-19 Simulator, an interactive online tool that utilizes a validated mathematical model, to simulate the trajectory of COVID-19 at the state level in the U.S. COVID-19 Simulator's forecasts are updated weekly and included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ensemble model. We employed our model to analyze scenarios where the Delta variant becomes dominant in every state. The combination of high transmissibility of the Delta variant, low vaccination coverage in several regions, and a more relaxed attitude towards social distancing is expected to result in a surge in COVID-19 deaths in at least 40 states. In several states -- including Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Washington, and West Virginia -- the projected daily deaths in 2021 could exceed the prior peak daily deaths under current social distancing behavior and vaccination rate. The number of COVID-19 deaths across the U.S. could exceed 1600 per day. Between August 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, there could be additional 157,000 COVID-19 deaths across the U.S. Of note, our model projected approximately 20,700 COVID-19 deaths in Texas, 16,000 in California, 12,400 in Florida, 12,000 in North Carolina, and 9,300 in Georgia during this period. In contrast, the projected number of COVID-19 deaths would remain below 200 in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island. We project COVID-19 deaths based on the current vaccination rates and social distancing behavior. Our hope is that the findings of this report serve a warning sign and people revert to wearing masks and maintain social distancing to reduce COVID-19 associated deaths in the U.S. Our projections are updated weekly by incorporating vaccination rates and social distancing measures in each state; the latest results can be found at the COVID-19 Simulator website.