Vaccine coverage among children born to immigrant parents in Norway, 2000-2020.

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Childhood Immunization Program maintains a high national coverage of 95-97% in the most recent years. Whether there are subgroups with lower uptake is less studied. This study examines pertussis and measles vaccination coverage among six immigrant groups in Norway. These vaccines are normally administered as part of different combination vaccines and their coverage rate indicate the national vaccination coverage against a range of additional infections. METHODS: Data from the Norwegian National Population Register were linked at individual level with vaccination data from the Norwegian Immunisation Registry. The final sample consisted of 53,052 children born during 2000-2018 in Norway to parents who were born in Iraq, Lithuania, Pakistan, Poland, Somalia, or Vietnam. Vaccination coverage was measured at 2-years of age. Multivariate linear regression was utilized to estimate the relationship between vaccinations status, year of birth, gender, mother's length of residency in Norway, and area of residence. RESULTS: At two years of age, the majority of the children were vaccinated. Coverage among the groups varied at, above, and below the national average for the two vaccines. For most of the years examined, children born by parents from Lithuania, Poland, and Somalia had lower coverage for the measles vaccine (range 81-84% in 2020) than the national level (97% in 2020). Children born by parents from the Eastern-European countries also had lower coverage than the national level for the pertussis vaccine (range 87-89% in 2020). DISCUSSION: This study illustrates how subgroups with lower vaccination coverage may exists within a well-established vaccination program with high national coverages. Differences in coverage were found for both vaccines, but the differences were more pronounced for the measles vaccine. The high vaccination coverage in Norway provides indirect protection through herd immunity for unvaccinated individuals, however, the lower vaccination coverage in some immigrant groups is a concern.

Cost-utility analysis of the universal pneumococcal vaccination programme for older adults in Norway.

The aim of this study was to establish whether the universal pneumococcal vaccination for older adults in Norway is likely to be cost-effective from the perspective of the health care provider. A decision tree model developed by the Public Health Agency of Sweden was adapted to the Norwegian setting. Two cohorts, consisting of 65-year-olds and 75-year-olds grouped into vaccinated and unvaccinated, were followed over a 5-year time horizon. In the base case, the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) was used while the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) was included in scenario analyses only. The costs and health benefits (measured in quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained) were compared in the two cohorts between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The impact of indirect effects of the vaccine, such as herd immunity and serotype replacement, were not investigated. The relative importance of change in price was assessed by performing one-way sensitivity analyses. Under base-case assumptions, the programme for the 75-year-old cohort is expected to be dominant (cost-effective) from the health care perspective at the current maximal pharmacy retail price and at 75% vaccination coverage. In comparison, for the 65-year-old cohort the cost per QALY gained is approximately NOK 601,784 (EUR 61,281) under the base-case assumptions. A reduction in the cost of the vaccine to one quarter of its current level also brings the cost per QALY gained within the acceptable ranges in a Norwegian context for both the 65- and 75-year-old cohorts. There is no exact cost-effectiveness threshold in Norway. However, introducing a vaccination programme against pneumococcal disease for 65-year-olds in Norway is likely to fall within the acceptable range while for the 75-year-old cohort the universal programme appears to be dominant (cost-effective).