Maternal varicella antibodies in children aged less than one year: Assessment of antibody decay.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate maternal antibody levels to varicella in infants <12 months of age in Ontario, Canada. STUDY DESIGN: In this study, we included specimens from infants <12 months of age, born at ≥37 weeks gestational age, who had sera collected at The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Canada) between 2014-2016. We tested sera using a glycoprotein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (gpELISA). We measured varicella susceptibility (antibody concentration <150mIU/mL) and mean varicella antibody concentration, and assessed the probability of susceptibility and concentration between one and 11 months of age using multivariable logistic regression and Poisson regression. RESULTS: We found that 32% of 196 included specimens represented infants susceptible to varicella at one month of age, increasing to nearly 80% at three months of age. At six months of age, all infants were susceptible to varicella and the predicted mean varicella antibody concentration declined to 62 mIU/mL (95% confidence interval 40, 84), well below the threshold of protection. CONCLUSIONS: We found that varicella maternal antibody levels wane rapidly in infants, leaving most infants susceptible by four months of age. Our findings have implications for the timing of first dose of varicella-containing vaccine, infection control measures, and infant post-exposure prophylaxis recommendations.

Assessment of population immunity to measles in Ontario, Canada: a Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) study.

Canada eliminated measles in 1998. We conducted a sero-epidemiology study to estimate population immunity to measles in the province of Ontario, Canada and to identify groups at higher risk of outbreaks. We used a previously developed modified enzyme immunoassay to test 1,199 residual sera from patients aged 1-39 years. We re-tested negative and equivocal sera using a plaque reduction neutralization assay. We interpreted our results in the context of Ontario's immunization program and vaccine coverage data. Of 1,199 sera, 1035 (86.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 84.4, 88.2) were above the measles threshold for protection, 70 (5.8%, 95% CI 4.5, 7.2) were equivocal and 94 (7.8%, 95% CI 6.3, 9.4) were negative. The proportion of positive sera was highest for those 1-5 years, with 180/199 (90.5%, 95% CI 86.4, 94.5) positive sera, and lowest for those age 12-19 years, at 158/199 (79.4%, 95% CI 73.8, 85.0). Adjusted for age, females were more likely than males to have antibody titers above the threshold of protection (odds ratio = 1.60, 95% CI 1.14, 2.24). Most of the study cohort were eligible for two measles vaccine doses, and vaccine uptake in Ontario is >90% for school-aged cohorts. We observed a higher than expected proportion of sera with antibody levels below the threshold of protection, suggesting that immunity in some Ontario age-groups may be waning, despite high vaccine coverage. Alternatively, the traditional measles correlates of protection may not be an appropriate measure of population protection in measles-eliminated settings.

Cost-effectiveness of measles control during elimination in Ontario, Canada, 2015.

BackgroundGiven that measles is eliminated in Canada and measles immunisation coverage in Ontario is high, it has been questioned whether Ontario's measles outbreak response is worthwhile.AimOur objective was to determine cost-effectiveness of measles containment protocols in Ontario from the healthcare payer perspective.MethodsWe developed a decision-analysis model comparing Ontario's measles containment strategy (based on actual 2015 outbreak data) with a hypothetical 'modified response'. The modified scenario assumed 10% response costs with reduced case and contact tracing and no outbreak-associated vaccinations; it was based on local and provincial administrative and laboratory data and parameters from peer-reviewed literature. Short- and long-term health outcomes, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs discounted at 1.5%, were estimated. We conducted one- and two-way sensitivity analyses.ResultsThe 2015 outbreak in Ontario comprised 16 measles cases and an estimated 3,369 contacts. Predictive modelling suggested that the outbreak response prevented 16 outbreak-associated cases at a cost of CAD 1,213,491 (EUR 861,579). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CAD 739,063 (EUR 524,735) per QALY gained for the outbreak response vs modified response. To meet the commonly accepted cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD 50,000 (EUR 35,500) per QALY gained, the outbreak response would have to prevent 94 measles cases. In sensitivity analyses, the findings were robust.ConclusionsOntario's measles outbreak response exceeds generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds and may not be the most efficient use of public health resources from a healthcare payer perspective. These findings should be balanced against benefits of increased vaccine coverage and maintaining elimination status.

A qualitative study of provider perspectives of structural barriers to cervical cancer screening among first nations women.

OBJECTIVE: In Canada, opportunistic screening programs have successfully reduced mortality from cervical cancer; however, minority or disadvantaged groups, as well as women in northern and rural areas, are inadequately recruited by this approach. Hence, we set out to examine the structural barriers that prevent First Nations women's participation in cervical cancer screening. METHODS: Using a participatory action research approach and semistructured interview guides, we conducted in-depth interviews with 18 experienced health care professionals, 12 of whom were also community members. These individuals included nurses, nurse practitioners, community health representatives, social workers and physicians who provide care to women in our First Nations partner communities. In the current report, we explored perceived barriers to cervical cancer screening through the lens of service providers. RESULTS: Structural barriers to cervical cancer screening for First Nations women included shortage of appropriate health care providers, lack of a recall-based screening system, geographic and transportation barriers; health literacy and socioeconomic inequalities, generational effects, and the colonial legacy. CONCLUSION: Existing, opportunistic cervical cancer screening programs do not perform well for First Nations women who experience significant screening-related health inequalities that are largely influenced by structural barriers. Sustainable screening interventions in First Nations communities require approaches that resolve these structural barriers, explore new ways of screening, and provide education for both women and health care providers. Many of the structural barriers are rooted in colonial history. Given the negative impact of the consequences of colonization on indigenous women worldwide, many of our findings strongly resonate with marginalized populations in other countries.