Cost–benefit of the introduction of new strategies for vaccination against pertussis in Spain: Cocooning and pregnant vaccination strategies

BackgroundPertussis remains a public health problem in countries with high vaccination coverage. Classic vaccination approaches have failed to effectively control the infection. The incidence of pertussis hospitalizations in infants is high, especially in those younger than 3 months who are in high risk of a severe disease and death. Additional strategies are recommended for short-term protection of this vulnerable population. In this study, we estimated the impact of 2 strategies for pertussis prevention in infants younger than 1 year of age—a cocoon vaccination strategy and the vaccination of pregnant women (VPW)—and the cost–benefit of these approaches relative to the current vaccination policy in Spain.MethodsA cost–benefit analysis was conducted from the perspective of the publically-funded Spanish healthcare system, based on the yearly number of hospitalizations during the period of 2009 to 2011. We calculated the absolute risk reduction, the number of parents that would need to be vaccinated to prevent 1 hospitalization or death in infants <1 year, and the net benefit-to-cost ratio of each strategy.ResultsFrom 2009 to 2011, the incidence of pertussis in Spain was 153.44 hospitalizations per 100,000 infants <1 year. The absolute risk reduction for hospitalization would be 42.1/100,000 with cocooning and 75.2/100,000 with VPW. The number of parents needed to vaccinate with the cocoon strategy to prevent 1 pertussis hospitalization would be 4752 and to prevent 1 death, more than 900,000. With VPW, 1331 pregnant women would have to be vaccinated to prevent 1 hospitalization and 200,000 to prevent 1 death. The benefit-to-cost ratio was 0.04 for cocooning and 0.15 for VPW.     

Is annual vaccination best? A modelling study of influenza vaccination strategies in children

IntroductionAnnual vaccination of children against influenza is a key component of vaccination programs in many countries. However, past infection and vaccination may affect an individual’s susceptibility to infection. Little research has evaluated whether annual vaccination is the best strategy. Using the United Kingdom as our motivating example, we developed a framework to assess the impact of different childhood vaccination strategies, specifically annual and biennial (every other year), on attack rate and expected number of infections.Methods and findingsWe present a multi-annual, individual-based, stochastic, force of infection model that accounts for individual exposure histories and disease/vaccine dynamics influencing susceptibility. We simulate birth cohorts that experience yearly influenza epidemics and follow them until age 18 to determine attack rates and the number of infections during childhood. We perform simulations under baseline conditions, with an assumed vaccination coverage of 44%, to compare annual vaccination to no and biennial vaccination. We relax our baseline assumptions to explore how our model assumptions impact vaccination program performance.At baseline, we observed less than half the number of infections between the ages 2 and 10 under annual vaccination in children who had been vaccinated at least half the time compared to no vaccination. When averaged over all ages 0–18, the number of infections under annual vaccination was 2.07 (2.06, 2.08) compared to 2.63 (2.62, 2.64) under no vaccination, and 2.38 (2.37, 2.40) under biennial vaccination. When we introduced a penalty for repeated exposures, we observed a decrease in the difference in infections between the vaccination strategies. Specifically, the difference in childhood infections under biennial compared to annual vaccination decreased from 0.31 to 0.04 as exposure penalty increased.ConclusionOur results indicate that while annual vaccination averts more childhood infections than biennial vaccination, this difference is small. Our work confirms the value of annual vaccination in children, even with modest vaccination coverage, but also shows that similar benefits of vaccination may be obtained by implementing a biennial vaccination program.Author summaryMany countries include annual vaccination of children against influenza in their vaccination programs. In the United Kingdom (UK), annual vaccination of children aged of 2 to 10 against influenza is recommended. However, little research has evaluated whether annual vaccination is the best strategy, while accounting for how past infection and vaccination may affect an individual’s susceptibility to infection in the current influenza season. Prior work has suggested that there may be a negative effect of repeated vaccination. In this work we developed a stochastic, individual-based model to assess the impact of repeated vaccination strategies on childhood infections. Specifically, we first compare annual vaccination to no vaccination and then annual vaccination to biennial (every other year) vaccination. We use the UK as our motivating example. We found that an annual vaccination strategy resulted in the fewest childhood infections, followed by biennial vaccination. The difference in number of childhood infections between the different vaccination strategies decreased when we introduced a penalty for repeated exposures. Our work confirms the value of annual vaccination in children, but also shows that similar benefits of vaccination can be obtained by implementing a biennial vaccination program, particularly when there is a negative effect of repeated vaccinations.     

Will more inputs improve the delivery of health services?: Analysis of district vaccination coverage in Pakistan

In order to determine whether physical resources or technical inputs can make a difference to the delivery of health services, we carried out a study that examined the large variation in district level vaccination coverage in Pakistan. Vaccination coverage was assessed by district-wise cluster surveys and the predictor variables were collected from census data and from a survey of 99 district health offices. Information was collected on basic supplies, physical infrastructure, management, training, socio-economic variables, and a variety of other indicators. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out. A model including female literacy rate, TV ownership, and provincial dummies explained 48% of the variation in DTP3 coverage. Very few of the other variables examined were significantly correlated to coverage. Possible explanatory variables like adequacy of syringe and vaccine supply, the number of vaccinators per capita, recent training of managers, frequency of supervision, availability of micro-plans, and turnover of managers were not correlated with coverage. While the Government of Pakistan has ensured that many physical resources and technical inputs have been provided to the district health offices, this does not appear able to explain the relatively low overall coverage or the variation between districts. Bolder initiatives and innovations are likely needed to improve delivery of basic health services.     

Did the temporary suspension of Vaxzveria vaccinations influence COVID-19 vaccination intentions,vaccination perceptions and trust in the vaccination campaign? A repeated survey study in the Netherlands

In spring 2021, several countries, among which the Netherlands, suspended vaccinations against COVID-19 with the Vaxzevria vaccine from AstraZeneca after reports of rare but severe adverse events. This study investigates the influence of this suspension on the Dutch public’s perceptions of COVID-19 vaccinations, trust in the government’s vaccination campaign, and COVID-19 vaccination intentions. We conducted two surveys in a population of general Dutch public (18 + ), one shortly before the pause of AstraZeneca vaccinations and one shortly thereafter (N eligible for analysis = 2628). Our results suggest no changes in perceptions nor intentions regarding the COVID-19 vaccines in general but do suggest a decline in trust in the government’s vaccination campaign. In addition, after the suspension, perceptions of the AstraZeneca vaccines were more negative in comparison to those of COVID-19 vaccinations in general. AstraZeneca vaccination intentions were also considerably lower. These results stress the need to adapt vaccination policies to anticipated public perceptions and responses following a vaccine safety scare, as well as the importance of informing citizens about the possibility of very rare adverse events prior to the introduction of novel vaccines.     

Deaths following vaccination: What does the evidence show?

Vaccines are rigorously tested and monitored and are among the safest medical products we use. Millions of vaccinations are given to children and adults in the United States each year. Serious adverse reactions are rare. However, because of the high volume of use, coincidental adverse events including deaths, that are temporally associated with vaccination, do occur. When death occurs shortly following vaccination, loved ones and others might naturally question whether it was related to vaccination. A large body of evidence supports the safety of vaccines, and multiple studies and scientific reviews have found no association between vaccination and deaths except in rare cases. During the US multi-state measles outbreak of 2014–2015, unsubstantiated claims of deaths caused by measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine began circulating on the Internet, prompting responses by public health officials to address common misinterpretations and misuses of vaccine safety surveillance data, particularly around spontaneous reports submitted to the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). We summarize epidemiologic data on deaths following vaccination, including examples where reasonable scientific evidence exists to support that vaccination caused or contributed to deaths. Rare cases where a known or plausible theoretical risk of death following vaccination exists include anaphylaxis, vaccine-strain systemic infection after administration of live vaccines to severely immunocompromised persons, intussusception after rotavirus vaccine, Guillain–Barré syndrome after inactivated influenza vaccine, fall-related injuries associated with syncope after vaccination, yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease or associated neurologic disease, serious complications from smallpox vaccine including eczema vaccinatum, progressive vaccinia, postvaccinal encephalitis, myocarditis, and dilated cardiomyopathy, and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis from oral poliovirus vaccine. However, making general assumptions and drawing conclusions about vaccinations causing deaths based on spontaneous reports to VAERS – some of which might be anecdotal or second-hand – or from case reports in the media, is not a scientifically valid practice.     

Flu vaccination communication in Europe: What does the government communicate and how?

IntroductionThe Flu vaccine is the most effective measure to prevent influenza. Yet, vaccination rates remain at sub-optimal levels, with 10%–29% coverage rates in the general population of the EU. As mistrust in vaccines has increased, effective strategies are needed and one is communication. The aim of this research is to identify vaccination recommendations of the health ministries in 5 European Member States and to investigate the communication strategies used.MethodsTwo methods were employed in this study. A review of flu vaccination recommendations in the European Union and five Members States (Austria, Germany, Malta, Ireland and United Kingdom). Next a content analysis was conducted of flu vaccination communication in those six contexts.Results and discussionAll countries recommend flu vaccination as a primary protection tool, but they differed in their recommendations for various target audiences. Channels for communication included seven websites and 42 other materials. The main messages used were gained framed promoting protection, either for oneself, family or patients. Most communications provided basic information replying on providing facts and knowledge about the flu and the benefits of vaccination. No information on the development of the communication or its effects were found.ConclusionCommunicating flu vaccination as a protective tool is common across countries and is consistent with the benefits of vaccination. Furthermore, the communications in the countries were not consistent with their recommendations. As the recommendations vary across and within countries, communication becomes a challenge. They should, at a minimum, be consistent with EU and country specific recommendations.     

Safety and perception: What are the greatest enemies of HPV vaccination programmes?

Vaccines stimulate a person’s immune system to produce an adequate reaction against a specific infectious agent; i.e. the person is protected from that disease without having to get it first. As vaccines are administrated to healthy subjects, they are held to the highest standards of safety. Regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, at present three prophylactic vaccines are licensed (bivalent HPV 16/18, quadrivalent HPV 6/11/16/18 and the nonovalent HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 vaccine). Pre- and post-licensure studies (i.e. not yet for nonovalent HPV vaccine) confirm that HPV vaccines are generally safe and well-tolerated, site injections symptoms are the most common adverse events (AEs) reported, and pain is the most frequently referred local symptom. Serious AEs are rare and not associated with severe sequelae, at least no vaccine-related deaths have occurred. Despite these scientific evidences, it is still difficult to explain to the population the importance of a good vaccination programme. There are many determinants for HPV vaccines hesitancy which represent a barrier that must be overcome in order to increase vaccine coverage, including psychological reactions, religious or cultural aspects, and fear of possible AEs (demyelinating diseases, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome – CRPS, or Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome – POTS). A weak communication strategy which frequently suffers due to spread of unverified news by media and websites may lead to the failure of a vaccination programme. Such a situation happened in Japan (2013), due to which a great number of women remain vulnerable to HPV-related cancers. In order to resolve the issues around HPV vaccines acceptance, it is necessary to use good communication strategies. Multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions seem to be the most effective, especially if an adequate language is used, customized according to the vaccination programme target.     

Negotiated or taken-for-granted trust? Explicit and implicit interpretations of trust in a medical setting

Trust between a patient and a medical doctor is normally both justified and taken for granted, but sometimes it may need to be negotiated. In this paper I will present how trust can be interpreted as both an explicit and implicit phenomenon, drawing on literature from the social sciences and philosophy. The distinction between explicit and implicit interpretations of trust will be used to address problems that may arise in clinical consultations. Negotiating trust in any way very easily brings distrust into a situation, but sometimes this can be helpful for building a more functional patient-doctor relationship.     

Smoking in the temple of the holy spirit? Geographic location matters

Smoking at a young age poses significant risks to one's health and is linked with a wide range of deviant conducts. While prior research has looked into the ways in which individual religious characteristics may influence smoking, much less is known about how the overall religious context in which individuals are embedded may affect smoking during adolescence and early adulthood. In this study, multilevel regression analyses were used on nationally representative panel data to explore this understudied area. The results suggest that when a county has higher population share of conservative Protestants, youth living there are more likely to smoke. A similar robust relationship is also found for county-level mainline Protestant population share and smoking. By simultaneously examining both the individual and contextual religious effects on smoking, this study contributes to a renewed, more comprehensive understanding of an important public health and youth deviance issue.     

What is the responsibility of national government with respect to vaccination?

Given the ethical aspects of vaccination policies and current threats to public trust in vaccination, it is important that governments follow clear criteria for including new vaccines in a national programme. The Health Council of the Netherlands developed such a framework of criteria in 2007, and has been using this as basis for advisory reports about several vaccinations. However, general criteria alone offer insufficient ground and direction for thinking about what the state ought to do. In this paper, we present and defend two basic ethical principles that explain why certain vaccinations are the state's moral-political responsibility, and that may further guide decision-making about the content and character of immunisation programmes. First and foremost, the state is responsible for protecting the basic conditions for public health and societal life. Secondly, states are responsible for promoting and securing equal access to basic health care, which may also include certain vaccinations. We argue how these principles can find reasonable support from a broad variety of ethical and political views, and discuss several implications for vaccination policies.     

Mandatory vaccination of infants in France: Is that the way forward?

In this opinion paper, the authors argue that the extension of mandatory immunization of infants up to two years of age from three diseases (diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis) to 11 diseases, introduced in France in January 2018, is not a sustainable response to the challenge of controlling vaccine-preventable diseases. In France in 2017, infant immunization coverage (IC) rates were sufficiently high or increasing (hepatitis B), except for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and meningococcus C disease. Even if vaccination obligation makes it possible to achieve the MMR IC objectives among infants, communication programmes and supported advice from GPs are essential for the catch-up of susceptible adults to obtain herd immunity. The impact of mandatory immunization on hesitancy remains uncertain, and it contradicts the evolution of the patient’s role in the governance of his own health and the principle of autonomy. Numerous studies have shown that interventions and advice from health professionals improve vaccine acceptance. To correct the poor implementation of some vaccination programmes by health professionals, strong communication and resources from health authorities are needed, rather than a retreat towards obligation. Reducing missed opportunities and increasing access to immunization are essential objectives. Finally, an immunization policy based on primary care and a patient-centred approach to each vaccination are more likely to reduce vaccine hesitancy, sustainably.