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.

Lives saved with vaccination for 10 pathogens across 112 countries in a pre-COVID-19 world.

Background: Vaccination is one of the most effective public health interventions. We investigate the impact of vaccination activities for Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, rotavirus, rubella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and yellow fever over the years 2000-2030 across 112 countries. Methods: Twenty-one mathematical models estimated disease burden using standardised demographic and immunisation data. Impact was attributed to the year of vaccination through vaccine-activity-stratified impact ratios. Results: We estimate 97 (95%CrI[80, 120]) million deaths would be averted due to vaccination activities over 2000-2030, with 50 (95%CrI[41, 62]) million deaths averted by activities between 2000 and 2019. For children under-5 born between 2000 and 2030, we estimate 52 (95%CrI[41, 69]) million more deaths would occur over their lifetimes without vaccination against these diseases. Conclusions: This study represents the largest assessment of vaccine impact before COVID-19-related disruptions and provides motivation for sustaining and improving global vaccination coverage in the future. Funding: VIMC is jointly funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) (BMGF grant number: OPP1157270 / INV-009125). Funding from Gavi is channelled via VIMC to the Consortium's modelling groups (VIMC-funded institutions represented in this paper: Imperial College London, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Public Health England, Johns Hopkins University, The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, Kaiser Permanente Washington, University of Cambridge, University of Notre Dame, Harvard University, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Emory University, National University of Singapore). Funding from BMGF was used for salaries of the Consortium secretariat (authors represented here: TBH, MJ, XL, SE-L, JT, KW, NMF, KAMG); and channelled via VIMC for travel and subsistence costs of all Consortium members (all authors). We also acknowledge funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Department for International Development, which supported aspects of VIMC's work (MRC grant number: MR/R015600/1).JHH acknowledges funding from National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship; Richard and Peggy Notebaert Premier Fellowship from the University of Notre Dame. BAL acknowledges funding from NIH/NIGMS (grant number R01 GM124280) and NIH/NIAID (grant number R01 AI112970). The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) receives funding support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.This paper was compiled by all coauthors, including two coauthors from Gavi. Other funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

A comparison of the test-negative and traditional case-control study designs with respect to the bias of estimates of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness.

Estimation of the effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines via the test-negative control study design has gained popularity over the past few years. In this study design, children with severe diarrhea who test positive for rotavirus infection are considered as cases, while children who test negative serve as controls. We use a simple probability model to evaluate and compare the test-negative control and the traditional case-control designs with respect to the bias of resulting estimates of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness (VE). Comparisons are performed under two scenarios, corresponding to studies performed in high-income and low-income countries. We consider two potential sources of bias: (a) misclassification bias resulting from imperfect sensitivity and specificity of the test used to diagnose rotavirus infection, and (b) selection bias associated with possible effect of rotavirus vaccination on the probability of contracting severe non-rotavirus diarrhea. Our results suggest that both sources of bias may produce VE estimates with substantial bias. Particularly, lack of perfect specificity is associated with severe negative bias. For example, if the specificity of the diagnostic test is 90% then VE estimates from both types of case-control studies may under-estimate the true VE by more than 20%. If the vaccine protects children against non-rotavirus diarrhea then VE estimates from test-negative control studies may be close to zero even though the true VE is 50%. However, the sensitivity and specificity of the enzyme immunoassay test currently used to diagnose rotavirus infections are both over 99%, and there is no solid evidence that the existing rotavirus vaccines affect the rates of non-rotavirus diarrhea. We therefore conclude that the test-negative control study design is a convenient and reliable alternative for estimation of rotavirus VE.