Re-evaluating the impact and cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction in 112 low-income and middle-income countries in children younger than 5 years: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Streptococcus pneumoniae has been estimated to cause 9·18 million cases of pneumococcal pneumonia, meningitis, and invasive non-pneumonia non-meningitis disease and 318 000 deaths among children younger than 5 years in 2015. We estimated the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) introduction. METHODS: We updated our existing pseudodynamic model to estimate the impact of 13-valent PCV (PCV13) in 112 low-income and middle-income countries by adapting our previously published pseudodynamic model with new country-specific evidence on vaccine coverage, burden, and post-introduction vaccine impact from WHO-UNICEF estimates of national immunisation coverage and a global burden study. Deaths, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and cases averted were estimated for children younger than 5 years born between 2000 and 2030. We used specific PCV coverage in each country and a hypothetical scenario in which coverage increased to diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) levels. We conducted probabilistic uncertainty analyses. FINDINGS: Using specific vaccine coverage in countries, we estimated that PCV13 could prevent 697 000 (95% credibility interval 359 000-1 040 000) deaths, 46·0 (24·0-68·9) million DALYs, and 131 (89·0-172) million cases in 112 countries between 2000 and 2030. PCV was estimated to prevent 5·3% of pneumococcal deaths in children younger than 5 years during 2000-30. The incremental cost of vaccination would be I$851 (510-1530) per DALY averted. If PCV coverage were increased to DTP coverage in 2020, PCV13 could prevent an additional 146 000 (75 500-219 000) deaths. INTERPRETATION: The inclusion of real-world evidence from lower-income settings revealed that delays in PCV roll-out globally and low PCV coverage have cost many lives. Countries with delays in vaccine introduction or low vaccine coverage have experienced many PCV-preventable deaths. These findings underscore the importance of rapidly scaling up PCV to achieve high coverage and maximise vaccine impact. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

Optimal human papillomavirus vaccination strategies in the context of vaccine supply constraints in 100 countries.

Background: Countries are recommended to immunise adolescent girls routinely with one or two doses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. With most existing vaccine doses absorbed by countries (mostly high-income) with existing HPV vaccination programmes, limited supply has been left for new country introductions until 2022; many of those, low- and middle-income countries with higher mortality. Several vaccination strategies were considered by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization to allow more countries to introduce vaccination despite constrained supplies. Methods: We examined the impact of nine strategies for allocating limited vaccine doses to 100 pre-introduction countries from 2020 to 2030. Two algorithms were used to optimise the total number of cancer deaths that can be averted worldwide by a limited number of doses (knapsack and decreasing order of country-specific mortality rates), and an unoptimised algorithm (decreasing order of Human Development Index) were used. Findings: Routinely vaccinating 14-year-old girls with either one or two doses and switching to a routine 9-year-old programme when supply is no longer constrained could prevent the most cervical cancer deaths, regardless of allocation algorithm. The unoptimised allocation averts fewer deaths because it allocates first to higher-income countries, usually with lower cervical cancer mortality. Interpretation: To optimise the deaths averted through vaccination when supply is limited, it is important to prioritise high-burden countries and vaccinating older girls first. Funding: WHO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Cost-effectiveness of COVID rapid diagnostic tests for patients with severe/critical illness in low- and middle-income countries: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for coronavirus disease (COVID) are used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform treatment decisions. However, to date, it is unclear when this use is cost-effective. Existing analyses are limited to a narrow set of countries and uses. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID RDTs to inform the treatment of patients with severe illness in LMICs, considering real world practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of COVID testing across LMICs using a decision tree model, differentiating results by country income level, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence, and testing scenario (none, RDTs, polymerase chain reaction tests-PCRs and combinations). LMIC experts defined realistic care pathways and treatment options. Using a healthcare provider perspective and net monetary benefit approach, we assessed both intended (COVID symptom alleviation) and unintended (treatment side effects) health and economic impacts for each testing scenario. We included the side effects of corticosteroids, which are often the only available treatment for COVID. Because side effects depend both on the treatment and the patient's underlying illness (COVID or COVID-like illnesses, such as influenza), we considered the prevalence of COVID-like illnesses in our analyses. We found that SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients with severe COVID-like illness can be cost-effective in all LMICs, though only in some circumstances. High influenza prevalence among suspected COVID cases improves cost-effectiveness, since incorrectly provided corticosteroids may worsen influenza outcomes. In low- and some lower-middle-income countries, only patients with a high index of suspicion for COVID should be tested with RDTs, while other patients should be presumed to not have COVID. In some lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries, suspected severe COVID cases should almost always be tested. Further, in these settings, negative test results in patients with a high initial index of suspicion should be confirmed through PCR and, during influenza outbreaks, positive results in patients with a low initial index of suspicion should also be confirmed with a PCR. The use of interleukin-6 receptor blockers, when supported by testing, may also be cost-effective in higher-income LMICs. The cost at which they would be cost-effective in low-income countries ($162 to $406 per treatment course) is below current prices. The primary limitation of our analysis is substantial uncertainty around some of the parameters in our model due to limited data, most notably on current COVID mortality with standard of care, and insufficient evidence on the impact of corticosteroids on patients with severe influenza. CONCLUSIONS: COVID testing can be cost-effective to inform treatment of LMIC patients with severe COVID-like disease. The optimal algorithm is driven by country income level and health budgets, the level of suspicion that the patient may have COVID, and influenza prevalence. Further research to better characterize the unintended effects of corticosteroids, particularly on influenza cases, could improve decision making around the treatment of those with COVID-like symptoms in LMICs.

Inequitable Distribution of Global Economic Benefits from Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccination.

Many low- and middle-income countries have been slow to introduce the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) into their routine childhood immunization schedules despite a high burden of disease. We estimated the global economic surplus of PCV, defined as the sum of the net value to 194 countries (i.e., monetized health benefits minus net costs) and to vaccine manufacturers (i.e., profits). We further explored the distribution of global economic surplus across country income groups and manufacturers and the effect of different pricing strategies based on cross-subsidization, pooled procurement, and various tiered pricing mechanisms. We found that current PCV pricing policies disproportionately benefit high-income countries and manufacturers. Based on the 2021 birth cohort, high-income countries and manufacturers combined received 76.5% of the net economic benefits generated by the vaccine. Over the two decades of PCV availability, low- and middle-income countries have not received the full economic benefits of PCV. Cross-subsidization of the vaccine price for low- and middle-income countries and pooled procurement policies that would relate the vaccine price to the value of economic benefits generated for each country could reduce these inequalities. This analysis offers important considerations that may improve the equitable introduction and use of new and under-utilized vaccines.

Immunogenicity and seroefficacy of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Vaccination of infants with pneumococcal conjugate vaccines is recommended by the World Health Organization. Evidence is mixed regarding the differences in immunogenicity and efficacy of the different pneumococcal vaccines. Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the immunogenicity of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 versus pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13. The main secondary objective was to compare the seroefficacy of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 versus pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and trialsearch.who.int up to July 2022. Studies were eligible if they directly compared either pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-7, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 or pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 in randomised trials of children under 2 years of age, and provided immunogenicity data for at least one time point. Individual participant data were requested and aggregate data used otherwise. Outcomes included the geometric mean ratio of serotype-specific immunoglobulin G and the relative risk of seroinfection. Seroinfection was defined for each individual as a rise in antibody between the post-primary vaccination series time point and the booster dose, evidence of presumed subclinical infection. Each trial was analysed to obtain the log of the ratio of geometric means and its standard error. The relative risk of seroinfection ('seroefficacy') was estimated by comparing the proportion of participants with seroinfection between vaccine groups. The log-geometric mean ratios, log-relative risks and their standard errors constituted the input data for evidence synthesis. For serotypes contained in all three vaccines, evidence could be synthesised using a network meta-analysis. For other serotypes, meta-analysis was used. Results from seroefficacy analyses were incorporated into a mathematical model of pneumococcal transmission dynamics to compare the differential impact of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 introduction on invasive pneumococcal disease cases. The model estimated the impact of vaccine introduction over a 25-year time period and an economic evaluation was conducted. Results: In total, 47 studies were eligible from 38 countries. Twenty-eight and 12 studies with data available were included in immunogenicity and seroefficacy analyses, respectively. Geometric mean ratios comparing pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 versus pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 favoured pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 for serotypes 4, 9V and 23F at 1 month after primary vaccination series, with 1.14- to 1.54-fold significantly higher immunoglobulin G responses with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13. Risk of seroinfection prior to the time of booster dose was lower for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 for serotype 4, 6B, 9V, 18C and 23F than for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10. Significant heterogeneity and inconsistency were present for most serotypes and for both outcomes. Twofold higher antibody after primary vaccination was associated with a 54% decrease in risk of seroinfection (relative risk 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.96). In modelled scenarios, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 or pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 introduction in 2006 resulted in a reduction in cases that was less rapid for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 than for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13. The pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 programme was predicted to avoid an additional 2808 (95% confidence interval 2690 to 2925) cases of invasive pneumococcal disease compared with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 introduction between 2006 and 2030. Limitations: Analyses used data from infant vaccine studies with blood samples taken prior to a booster dose. The impact of extrapolating pre-booster efficacy to post-booster time points is unknown. Network meta-analysis models contained significant heterogeneity which may lead to bias. Conclusions: Serotype-specific differences were found in immunogenicity and seroefficacy between pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10. Higher antibody response after vaccination was associated with a lower risk of subsequent infection. These methods can be used to compare the pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and optimise vaccination strategies. For future work, seroefficacy estimates can be determined for other pneumococcal vaccines, which could contribute to licensing or policy decisions for new pneumococcal vaccines. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019124580. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/148/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 34. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Pneumococcal disease is a serious illness caused by a bacterial infection that can result in death. Children in the United Kingdom receive a vaccine to prevent this disease that protects against 13 different types of pneumococcal diseases. It is very effective, but other vaccines are also available, such as one that contains 10 types of pneumococcal diseases. Vaccines in the United Kingdom are bought by the government and the choice of which vaccine to provide is based on the cost of the vaccine as well as the benefits to our health. However, there is very little information comparing different vaccines and it is often assumed they are the same. We did a large analysis combining all studies of the two main licensed pneumococcal vaccines to determine which vaccine provides better protection against infection and how this affects costs. We used information from studies published in medical journals, and also data from studies done by the companies that own the vaccines. Our results showed that pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 vaccine provided better protection than pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 for 5 of the 10 serotypes that are contained in both vaccines. When we used these results to model what might have happened had either of these vaccines been introduced into the United Kingdom vaccination programme in 2006, we found that both vaccines caused a rapid decrease in the amount of disease, but that the decrease in disease was faster with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 than pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10. This resulted in 2808 cases of diseases prevented over a 25-year time frame with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 compared with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10. Our methods can be used to compare other vaccines and we recommend this type of study be done in future when making decisions on vaccine product choice.

Healthcare utilisation in people with long COVID: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID potentially increases healthcare utilisation and costs. However, its impact on the NHS remains to be determined. METHODS: This study aims to assess the healthcare utilisation of individuals with long COVID. With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a matched cohort study using primary and secondary care data via OpenSAFELY, a platform for analysing anonymous electronic health records. The long COVID exposure group, defined by diagnostic codes, was matched with five comparators without long COVID between Nov 2020 and Jan 2023. We compared their total healthcare utilisation from GP consultations, prescriptions, hospital admissions, A&E visits, and outpatient appointments. Healthcare utilisation and costs were evaluated using a two-part model adjusting for covariates. Using a difference-in-difference model, we also compared healthcare utilisation after long COVID with pre-pandemic records. RESULTS: We identified 52,988 individuals with a long COVID diagnosis, matched to 264,867 comparators without a diagnosis. In the 12 months post-diagnosis, there was strong evidence that those with long COVID were more likely to use healthcare resources (OR: 8.29, 95% CI: 7.74-8.87), and have 49% more healthcare utilisation (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.48-1.51). Our model estimated that the long COVID group had 30 healthcare visits per year (predicted mean: 29.23, 95% CI: 28.58-29.92), compared to 16 in the comparator group (predicted mean visits: 16.04, 95% CI: 15.73-16.36). Individuals with long COVID were more likely to have non-zero healthcare expenditures (OR = 7.66, 95% CI = 7.20-8.15), with costs being 44% higher than the comparator group (cost ratio = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.39-1.50). The long COVID group costs approximately £2500 per person per year (predicted mean cost: £2562.50, 95% CI: £2335.60-£2819.22), and the comparator group costs £1500 (predicted mean cost: £1527.43, 95% CI: £1404.33-1664.45). Historically, individuals with long COVID utilised healthcare resources more frequently, but their average healthcare utilisation increased more after being diagnosed with long COVID, compared to the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID increases healthcare utilisation and costs. Public health policies should allocate more resources towards preventing, treating, and supporting individuals with long COVID.

Evaluating Scope and Bias of Population-Level Measles Serosurveys: A Systematized Review and Bias Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Measles seroprevalence data have potential to be a useful tool for understanding transmission dynamics and for decision making efforts to strengthen immunization programs. In this study, we conducted a systematized review and bias assessment of all primary data on measles seroprevalence in low- and middle-income countries (as defined by World Bank 2021 income classifications) published from 1962 to 2021. METHODS: On 9 March 2022, we searched PubMed for all available data. We included studies containing primary data on measles seroprevalence and excluded studies if they were clinical trials or brief reports, from only health-care workers, suspected measles cases, or only vaccinated persons. We extracted all available information on measles seroprevalence, study design, and seroassay protocol. We conducted a bias assessment based on multiple categories and classified each study as having low, moderate, severe, or critical bias. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022326075). RESULTS: We identified 221 relevant studies across all World Health Organization regions, decades, and unique age ranges. The overall crude mean seroprevalence across all studies was 78.0% (SD: 19.3%), and the median seroprevalence was 84.0% (IQR: 72.8-91.7%). We classified 80 (36.2%) studies as having severe or critical overall bias. Studies from country-years with lower measles vaccine coverage or higher measles incidence had higher overall bias. CONCLUSIONS: While many studies have substantial underlying bias, many studies still provide some insights or data that could be used to inform modelling efforts to examine measles dynamics and programmatic decisions to reduce measles susceptibility.

A health technology assessment of COVID-19 vaccination for Nigerian decision-makers: Identifying stakeholders and pathways to support evidence uptake.

BACKGROUND: Nigeria commenced rollout of vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in March 2021 as part of the national public health response to the pandemic. Findings from appropriately contextualized cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) as part of a wider process involving health technology assessment (HTA) approaches have been important in informing decision-making in this area. In this paper we outline the processes that were followed to identify COVID-19 vaccine stakeholders involved in the selection, approval, funding, procurement and rollout of vaccines in Nigeria, and describe the process routes we identified to support uptake of HTA-related information for evidence-informed policy in Nigeria. METHODS: Our approach to engaging with policy-makers and other stakeholders as part of an HTA of COVID vaccination in Nigeria consisted of three steps, namely: (i) informal discussions with key stakeholders; (ii) stakeholder mapping, analysis and engagement; and (iii) communication and dissemination strategies for the HTA-relevant evidence produced. The analysis of the stakeholder mapping uses the power/interest grid framework. RESULTS: The informal discussion with key stakeholders generated six initial policy questions. Further discussions with policy-makers yielded three suitable policy questions for analysis: which COVID-19 vaccines should be bought; what is the optimal mode of delivery of these vaccines; and what are the cost and cost-effectiveness of vaccinating people highlighted in Nigeria's phase 2 vaccine rollout prioritized by the government, especially the inclusion of those aged between 18 and 49 years. The stakeholder mapping exercise highlighted the range of organizations and groups within Nigeria that could use the information from this HTA to guide decision-making. These stakeholders included both public/government, private and international organizations The dissemination plan developed included disseminating the full HTA results to key stakeholders; production of policy briefs; and presentation at different national and international conferences and peer-reviewed publications. CONCLUSIONS: HTA processes that involve stakeholder engagement will help ensure important policy questions are taken into account when designing any HTA including any underpinning evidence generation. Further guidance about stakeholder engagement throughout HTA is required, especially for those with low interest in vaccine procurement and use.

Clinical coding of long COVID in primary care 2020-2023 in a cohort of 19 million adults: an OpenSAFELY analysis.

Background: Long COVID is the patient-coined term for the persistent symptoms of COVID-19 illness for weeks, months or years following the acute infection. There is a large burden of long COVID globally from self-reported data, but the epidemiology, causes and treatments remain poorly understood. Primary care is used to help identify and treat patients with long COVID and therefore Electronic Health Records (EHRs) of past COVID-19 patients could be used to help fill these knowledge gaps. We aimed to describe the incidence and differences in demographic and clinical characteristics in recorded long COVID in primary care records in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England we used routine clinical data from over 19 million adults in England linked to SARS-COV-2 test result, hospitalisation and vaccination data to describe trends in the recording of 16 clinical codes related to long COVID between November 2020 and January 2023. Using OpenSAFELY, we calculated rates per 100,000 person-years and plotted how these changed over time. We compared crude and adjusted (for age, sex, 9 NHS regions of England, and the dominant variant circulating) rates of recorded long COVID in patient records between different key demographic and vaccination characteristics using negative binomial models. Findings: We identified a total of 55,465 people recorded to have long COVID over the study period, which included 20,025 diagnoses codes and 35,440 codes for further assessment. The incidence of new long COVID records increased steadily over 2021, and declined over 2022. The overall rate per 100,000 person-years was 177.5 cases in women (95% CI: 175.5-179) and 100.5 in men (99.5-102). The majority of those with a long COVID record did not have a recorded positive SARS-COV-2 test 12 or more weeks before the long COVID record. Interpretation: In this descriptive study, EHR recorded long COVID was very low between 2020 and 2023, and incident records of long COVID declined over 2022. Using EHR diagnostic or referral codes unfortunately has major limitations in identifying and ascertaining true cases and timing of long COVID. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).

Overcoming challenges in the economic evaluation of interventions to optimise antibiotic use.

Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, reducing our ability to treat infections and threatening to undermine modern health care. Optimising antibiotic use is a key element in tackling the problem. Traditional economic evaluation methods do not capture many of the benefits from improved antibiotic use and the potential impact on resistance. Not capturing these benefits is a major obstacle to optimising antibiotic use, as it fails to incentivise the development and use of interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and preserve their effectiveness (stewardship interventions). Estimates of the benefits of improving antibiotic use involve considerable uncertainty as they depend on the evolution of resistance and associated health outcomes and costs. Here we discuss how economic evaluation methods might be adapted, in the face of such uncertainties. We propose a threshold-based approach that estimates the minimum resistance-related costs that would need to be averted by an intervention to make it cost-effective. If it is probable that without the intervention costs will exceed the threshold then the intervention should be deemed cost-effective.

Contribution of vaccination to improved survival and health: modelling 50 years of the Expanded Programme on Immunization.

BACKGROUND: WHO, as requested by its member states, launched the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) in 1974 to make life-saving vaccines available to all globally. To mark the 50-year anniversary of EPI, we sought to quantify the public health impact of vaccination globally since the programme's inception. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used a suite of mathematical and statistical models to estimate the global and regional public health impact of 50 years of vaccination against 14 pathogens in EPI. For the modelled pathogens, we considered coverage of all routine and supplementary vaccines delivered since 1974 and estimated the mortality and morbidity averted for each age cohort relative to a hypothetical scenario of no historical vaccination. We then used these modelled outcomes to estimate the contribution of vaccination to globally declining infant and child mortality rates over this period. FINDINGS: Since 1974, vaccination has averted 154 million deaths, including 146 million among children younger than 5 years of whom 101 million were infants younger than 1 year. For every death averted, 66 years of full health were gained on average, translating to 10·2 billion years of full health gained. We estimate that vaccination has accounted for 40% of the observed decline in global infant mortality, 52% in the African region. In 2024, a child younger than 10 years is 40% more likely to survive to their next birthday relative to a hypothetical scenario of no historical vaccination. Increased survival probability is observed even well into late adulthood. INTERPRETATION: Since 1974 substantial gains in childhood survival have occurred in every global region. We estimate that EPI has provided the single greatest contribution to improved infant survival over the past 50 years. In the context of strengthening primary health care, our results show that equitable universal access to immunisation remains crucial to sustain health gains and continue to save future lives from preventable infectious mortality. FUNDING: WHO.

An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations.

The term 'perspective' in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders' viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.

Long-term healthcare utilisation, costs and quality of life after invasive group B Streptococcus disease: a cohort study in five low-income and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: There are no published data on the long-term impact of invasive group B Streptococcus disease (iGBS) on economic costs or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in low-income and middle-income countries. We assessed the impact of iGBS on healthcare utilisation, costs and HRQoL in Argentina, India, Kenya, Mozambique and South Africa. METHODS: Inpatient and outpatient visits, out-of-pocket (OOP) healthcare payments in the 12 months before study enrolment, and health-state utility of children and caregivers (using the EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-Level) were collected from iGBS survivors and an unexposed cohort matched on site, age at recruitment and sex. We used logistic or Poisson regression for analysing healthcare utilisation and zero-inflated gamma regression models for family and health system costs. For HRQoL, we used a zero-inflated beta model of disutility pooled data. RESULTS: 161 iGBS-exposed and 439 unexposed children and young adults (age 1-20) were included in the analysis. Compared with unexposed participants, iGBS was associated with increased odds of any healthcare utilisation in India (adjusted OR 11.2, 95% CI 2.9 to 43.1) and Mozambique (6.8, 95% CI 2.2 to 21.1) and more frequent healthcare visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for India 1.7 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.2) and for Mozambique 6.0 (95% CI 3.2 to 11.2)). iGBS was also associated with more frequent days in inpatient care in India (adjusted IRR 4.0 (95% CI 2.3 to 6.8) and Kenya 6.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 14.3)). OOP payments were higher in the iGBS cohort in India (adjusted mean: Int$682.22 (95% CI Int$364.28 to Int$1000.16) vs Int$133.95 (95% CI Int$72.83 to Int$195.06)) and Argentina (Int$244.86 (95% CI Int$47.38 to Int$442.33) vs Int$52.38 (95% CI Int$-1.39 to Int$106.1)). For all remaining sites, differences were in the same direction but not statistically significant for almost all outcomes. Health-state disutility was higher in iGBS survivors (0.08, 0.04-0.13 vs 0.06, 0.02-0.10). CONCLUSION: The iGBS health and economic burden may persist for years after acute disease. Larger studies are needed for more robust estimates to inform the cost-effectiveness of iGBS prevention.

Impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life: an OpenSAFELY population cohort study using patient-reported outcome measures (OpenPROMPT).

Background: Long COVID is a major problem affecting patient health, the health service, and the workforce. To optimise the design of future interventions against COVID-19, and to better plan and allocate health resources, it is critical to quantify the health and economic burden of this novel condition. We aimed to evaluate and estimate the differences in health impacts of long COVID across sociodemographic categories and quantify this in Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), widely used measures across health systems. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we utilised OpenPROMPT, a UK cohort study measuring the impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OpenPROMPT invited responses to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) using a smartphone application and recruited between November 2022 and October 2023. We used the validated EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire with the UK Value Set to develop disutility scores (1-utility) for respondents with and without Long COVID using linear mixed models, and we calculated subsequent Quality-Adjusted Life-Months (QALMs) for long COVID. Findings: The total OpenPROMPT cohort consisted of 7575 individuals who consented to data collection, with which we used data from 6070 participants who completed a baseline research questionnaire where 24.6% self-reported long COVID. In multivariable regressions, long COVID had a consistent impact on HRQoL, showing a higher likelihood or odds of reporting loss in quality-of-life (Odds Ratio (OR): 4.7, 95% CI: 3.72-5.93) compared with people who did not report long COVID. Reporting a disability was the largest predictor of losses of HRQoL (OR: 17.7, 95% CI: 10.37-30.33) across survey responses. Self-reported long COVID was associated with an 0.37 QALM loss. Interpretation: We found substantial impacts on quality-of-life due to long COVID, representing a major burden on patients and the health service. We highlight the need for continued support and research for long COVID, as HRQoL scores compared unfavourably to patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, heart failure, and renal disease. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).

Global vaccine coverage and childhood survival estimates: 1990-2019.

Objective: To quantify the association between reduction in child mortality and routine immunization across 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Methods: We used child mortality and vaccine coverage data from the Global Burden of Disease Study. We used a modified child survival framework and applied a mixed-effects regression model to estimate the reduction in deaths in children younger than 5 years associated with eight vaccines. Findings: Between 1990 and 2019, the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), measles, rotavirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines were significantly associated with an estimated 86.9 (95% confidence interval, CI: 57.2 to 132.4) million fewer deaths in children younger than 5 years worldwide. This decrease represented a 24.2% (95% CI: 19.8 to 28.9) reduction in deaths relative to a scenario without vaccines. The DTP and measles vaccines averted 46.7 (95% CI: 30.0 to 72.7) million and 37.9 (95% CI: 25.4 to 56.8) million deaths, respectively. Of the total reduction in child mortality associated with vaccines, 84.2% (95% CI: 83.0 to 85.1) occurred in 73 countries supported by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, with an estimated 45.4 (95% CI: 29.8 to 69.2) million fewer deaths from 2000 to 2019. The largest reductions in deaths associated with these four vaccines were in India, China, Ethiopia, Pakistan and Bangladesh (in order of the size of reduction). Conclusion: Vaccines continue to reduce childhood mortality significantly, especially in Gavi-supported countries, emphasizing the need for increased investment in routine immunization programmes.

Equity impact of HPV vaccination on lifetime projections of cervical cancer burden among cohorts in 84 countries by global, regional, and income levels, 2010-22: a modelling study.

Background: While human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have been available since 2006, the coverage has varied among countries. Our aim is to analyse the equity impact of HPV vaccination on the lifetime projections of cervical cancer burden among vaccinated cohorts of 2010-22 in 84 countries. Methods: We used WHO and UNICEF estimates of national immunisation coverage for HPV vaccination in 84 countries during 2010-22. We used PRIME (Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics) to estimate the lifetime health impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer burden in terms of deaths, cases, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted by vaccination in their respective countries. We generated concentration indices and curves to assess the equity impact of HPV vaccination across 84 countries. Findings: The health impact of HPV vaccination varied across the 84 countries and ranged from Switzerland to Tanzania at 2 to 34 deaths, 4 to 47 cases, and 40 to 735 DALYs averted per 1000 vaccinated adolescent girls over the lifetime of the vaccinated cohorts of 2010-22. The concentration index for the distribution of average coverage during 2010-22 among the 84 countries ranked by vaccine impact was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.27-0.40) and highlights the wide inequities in HPV vaccination coverage. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that countries with a relatively higher cervical cancer burden and thereby a relatively higher need for HPV vaccination had relatively lower coverage during 2010-22. Further, there were significant inequities in HPV vaccination coverage within the Americas, Europe, and Western Pacific regions, and in high- and low-income countries with a pro-advantaged and regressive distribution favouring countries with lower vaccine impact. Funding: Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on depression incidence and healthcare service use among patients with depression: an interrupted time-series analysis from a 9-year population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on depression burden focused on the earlier pandemic phase specific to lockdowns, but the longer-term impact of the pandemic is less well-studied. In this population-based cohort study, we examined the short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on depression incidence and healthcare service use among patients with depression. METHODS: Using the territory-wide electronic medical records in Hong Kong, we identified all patients aged ≥ 10 years with new diagnoses of depression from 2014 to 2022. We performed an interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis to examine changes in incidence of medically attended depression before and during the pandemic. We then divided all patients into nine cohorts based on year of depression incidence and studied their initial and ongoing service use patterns until the end of 2022. We applied generalized linear modeling to compare the rates of healthcare service use in the year of diagnosis between patients newly diagnosed before and during the pandemic. A separate ITS analysis explored the pandemic impact on the ongoing service use among prevalent patients with depression. RESULTS: We found an immediate increase in depression incidence (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.10-1.33, p < 0.001) in the population after the pandemic began with non-significant slope change, suggesting a sustained effect until the end of 2022. Subgroup analysis showed that the increases in incidence were significant among adults and the older population, but not adolescents. Depression patients newly diagnosed during the pandemic used 11% fewer resources than the pre-pandemic patients in the first diagnosis year. Pre-existing depression patients also had an immediate decrease of 16% in overall all-cause service use since the pandemic, with a positive slope change indicating a gradual rebound over a 3-year period. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, service provision for depression was suboptimal in the face of increased demand generated by the increasing depression incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings indicate the need to improve mental health resource planning preparedness for future public health crises.

The Full Value of Vaccine Assessments Concept-Current Opportunities and Recommendations.

For vaccine development and adoption decisions, the 'Full Value of Vaccine Assessment' (FVVA) framework has been proposed by the WHO to expand the range of evidence available to support the prioritization of candidate vaccines for investment and eventual uptake by low- and middle-income countries. Recent applications of the FVVA framework have already shown benefits. Building on the success of these applications, we see important new opportunities to maximize the future utility of FVVAs to country and global stakeholders and provide a proof-of-concept for analyses in other areas of disease control and prevention. These opportunities include the following: (1) FVVA producers should aim to create evidence that explicitly meets the needs of multiple key FVVA consumers, (2) the WHO and other key stakeholders should develop standardized methodologies for FVVAs, as well as guidance for how different stakeholders can explicitly reflect their values within the FVVA framework, and (3) the WHO should convene experts to further develop and prioritize the research agenda for outcomes and benefits relevant to the FVVA and elucidate methodological approaches and opportunities for standardization not only for less well-established benefits, but also for any relevant research gaps. We encourage FVVA stakeholders to engage with these opportunities.

Vaccine value profile for Klebsiella pneumoniae.

Klebsiella pneumoniae causes community- and healthcare-associated infections in children and adults. Globally in 2019, an estimated 1.27 million (95% Uncertainty Interval [UI]: 0.91-1.71) and 4.95 million (95% UI: 3.62-6.57) deaths were attributed to and associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR), respectively. K. pneumoniae was the second leading pathogen in deaths attributed to AMR resistant bacteria. Furthermore, the rise of antimicrobial resistance in both community- and hospital-acquired infections is a concern for neonates and infants who are at high risk for invasive bacterial disease. There is a limited antibiotic pipeline for new antibiotics to treat multidrug resistant infections, and vaccines targeted against K. pneumoniae are considered to be of priority by the World Health Organization. Vaccination of pregnant women against K. pneumoniae could reduce the risk of invasive K.pneumoniae disease in their young offspring. In addition, vulnerable children, adolescents and adult populations at risk of K. pneumoniae disease with underlying diseases such as immunosuppression from underlying hematologic malignancy, chemotherapy, patients undergoing abdominal and/or urinary surgical procedures, or prolonged intensive care management are also potential target groups for a K. pneumoniae vaccine. A 'Vaccine Value Profile' (VVP) for K.pneumoniae, which contemplates vaccination of pregnant women to protect their babies from birth through to at least three months of age and other high-risk populations, provides a high-level, holistic assessment of the available information to inform the potential public health, economic and societal value of a pipeline of K. pneumoniae vaccines and other preventatives and therapeutics. This VVP was developed by a working group of subject matter experts from academia, non-profit organizations, public-private partnerships, and multi-lateral organizations, and in collaboration with stakeholders from the WHO. All contributors have extensive expertise on various elements of the K.pneumoniae VVP and collectively aimed to identify current research and knowledge gaps. The VVP was developed using only existing and publicly available information.

Estimating the health effects of COVID-19-related immunisation disruptions in 112 countries during 2020-30: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: There have been declines in global immunisation coverage due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recovery has begun but is geographically variable. This disruption has led to under-immunised cohorts and interrupted progress in reducing vaccine-preventable disease burden. There have, so far, been few studies of the effects of coverage disruption on vaccine effects. We aimed to quantify the effects of vaccine-coverage disruption on routine and campaign immunisation services, identify cohorts and regions that could particularly benefit from catch-up activities, and establish if losses in effect could be recovered. METHODS: For this modelling study, we used modelling groups from the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium from 112 low-income and middle-income countries to estimate vaccine effect for 14 pathogens. One set of modelling estimates used vaccine-coverage data from 1937 to 2021 for a subset of vaccine-preventable, outbreak-prone or priority diseases (ie, measles, rubella, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus [HPV], meningitis A, and yellow fever) to examine mitigation measures, hereafter referred to as recovery runs. The second set of estimates were conducted with vaccine-coverage data from 1937 to 2020, used to calculate effect ratios (ie, the burden averted per dose) for all 14 included vaccines and diseases, hereafter referred to as full runs. Both runs were modelled from Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2100. Countries were included if they were in the Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance portfolio; had notable burden; or had notable strategic vaccination activities. These countries represented the majority of global vaccine-preventable disease burden. Vaccine coverage was informed by historical estimates from WHO-UNICEF Estimates of National Immunization Coverage and the immunisation repository of WHO for data up to and including 2021. From 2022 onwards, we estimated coverage on the basis of guidance about campaign frequency, non-linear assumptions about the recovery of routine immunisation to pre-disruption magnitude, and 2030 endpoints informed by the WHO Immunization Agenda 2030 aims and expert consultation. We examined three main scenarios: no disruption, baseline recovery, and baseline recovery and catch-up. FINDINGS: We estimated that disruption to measles, rubella, HPV, hepatitis B, meningitis A, and yellow fever vaccination could lead to 49 119 additional deaths (95% credible interval [CrI] 17 248-134 941) during calendar years 2020-30, largely due to measles. For years of vaccination 2020-30 for all 14 pathogens, disruption could lead to a 2·66% (95% CrI 2·52-2·81) reduction in long-term effect from 37 378 194 deaths averted (34 450 249-40 241 202) to 36 410 559 deaths averted (33 515 397-39 241 799). We estimated that catch-up activities could avert 78·9% (40·4-151·4) of excess deaths between calendar years 2023 and 2030 (ie, 18 900 [7037-60 223] of 25 356 [9859-75 073]). INTERPRETATION: Our results highlight the importance of the timing of catch-up activities, considering estimated burden to improve vaccine coverage in affected cohorts. We estimated that mitigation measures for measles and yellow fever were particularly effective at reducing excess burden in the short term. Additionally, the high long-term effect of HPV vaccine as an important cervical-cancer prevention tool warrants continued immunisation efforts after disruption. FUNDING: The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. TRANSLATIONS: For the Arabic, Chinese, French, Portguese and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.