Cost-effectiveness of varicella and herpes zoster vaccination in Sweden: An economic evaluation using a dynamic transmission model.

OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses of introducing varicella and/or herpes zoster vaccination in the Swedish national vaccination programme. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analyses based on epidemiological results from a specifically developed transmission model. SETTING: National vaccination programme in Sweden, over an 85- or 20-year time horizon depending on the vaccination strategy. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohorts of people aged 12 months and 65-years at baseline. INTERVENTIONS: Four alternative vaccination strategies; 1, not to vaccinate; 2, varicella vaccination with one dose of the live attenuated vaccine at age 12 months and a second dose at age 18 months; 3, herpes zoster vaccination with one dose of the live attenuated vaccine at 65 years of age; and 4, both vaccine against varicella and herpes zoster with the before-mentioned strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accumulated cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for each strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). RESULTS: It would be cost-effective to vaccinate against varicella (dominant), but not to vaccinate against herpes zoster (ICER of EUR 200,000), assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of EUR 50,000 per QALY. The incremental analysis between varicella vaccination only and the combined programme results in a cost per gained QALY of almost EUR 1.6 million. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study are central components for policy-relevant decision-making, and suggest that it was cost-effective to introduce varicella vaccination in Sweden, whereas herpes zoster vaccination with the live attenuated vaccine for the elderly was not cost-effective-the health effects of the latter vaccination cannot be considered reasonable in relation to its costs. Future observational and surveillance studies are needed to make reasonable predictions on how boosting affects the herpes zoster incidence in the population, and thus the cost-effectiveness of a vaccination programme against varicella. Also, the link between herpes zoster and sequelae need to be studied in more detail to include it suitably in health economic evaluations.

National, Regional, State, and Selected Local Area Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescents Aged 13-17 Years - United States, 2016.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that adolescents routinely receive tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap), meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY), and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (1) at age 11-12 years. ACIP also recommends catch-up vaccination with hepatitis B vaccine, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and varicella vaccine for adolescents who are not up to date with childhood vaccinations. ACIP recommends a booster dose of MenACWY at age 16 years (1). In December 2016, ACIP updated HPV vaccine recommendations to include a 2-dose schedule for immunocompetent adolescents initiating the vaccination series before their 15th birthday (2). To estimate adolescent vaccination coverage in the United States, CDC analyzed data from the 2016 National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) for 20,475 adolescents aged 13-17 years.* During 2015-2016, coverage increased for ≥1 dose of Tdap (from 86.4% to 88.0%) and for each HPV vaccine dose (from 56.1% to 60.4% for ≥1 dose). Among adolescents aged 17 years, coverage with ≥2 doses of MenACWY increased from 33.3% to 39.1%. In 2016, 43.4% of adolescents (49.5% of females; 37.5% of males) were up to date with the HPV vaccination series, applying the updated HPV vaccine recommendations retrospectively.† Coverage with ≥1 HPV vaccine dose varied by metropolitan statistical area (MSA) status and was lowest (50.4%) among adolescents living in non-MSA areas and highest (65.9%) among those living in MSA central cities.§ Adolescent vaccination coverage continues to improve overall; however, substantial opportunities exist to further increase HPV-associated cancer prevention.

Coverage, efficacy or dosing interval: which factor predominantly influences the impact of routine childhood vaccination for the prevention of varicella? A model-based study for Italy.

BACKGROUND: Varicella is a highly infectious disease with a significant public health and economic burden, which can be prevented with childhood routine varicella vaccination. Vaccination strategies differ by country. Some factors are known to play an important role (number of doses, coverage, dosing interval, efficacy and catch-up programmes), however, their relative impact on the reduction of varicella in the population remains unclear. This paper aims to help policy makers prioritise the critical factors to achieve the most successful vaccination programme with the available budget. METHODS: Scenarios assessed the impact of different vaccination strategies on reduction of varicella disease in the population. A dynamic transmission model was used and adapted to fit Italian demographics and population mixing patterns. Inputs included coverage, number of doses, dosing intervals, first-dose efficacy and availability of catch-up programmes, based on strategies currently used or likely to be used in different countries. The time horizon was 30 years. RESULTS: Both one- and two-dose routine varicella vaccination strategies prevented a comparable number of varicella cases with complications, but two-doses provided broader protection due to prevention of a higher number of milder varicella cases. A catch-up programme in susceptible adolescents aged 10-14 years old reduced varicella cases by 27-43 % in older children, which are often more severe than in younger children. Coverage, for all strategies, sustained at high levels achieved the largest reduction in varicella. In general, a 20 % increase in coverage resulted in a further 27-31 % reduction in varicella cases. When high coverage is reached, the impact of dosing interval and first-dose vaccine efficacy had a relatively lower impact on disease prevention in the population. Compared to the long (11 years) dosing interval, the short (5 months) and medium (5 years) interval schedules reduced varicella cases by a further 5-13 % and 2-5 %, respectively. Similarly, a 10 % increase in first-dose efficacy (from 65 to 75 % efficacy) prevented 2-5 % more varicella cases, suggesting it is the least influential factor when considering routine varicella vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination strategies can be implemented differently in each country depending on their needs, infrastructure and healthcare budget. However, ensuring high coverage remains the critical success factor for significant prevention of varicella when introducing varicella vaccination in the national immunisation programme.

Long-term safety and efficacy of varicella vaccination in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis treated with biologic therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of varicella vaccination in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treated with biologics. METHODS: We performed a prospective study with long term follow up. Six patients with JIA treated with biologics, received 2 doses of varicella vaccine. Before vaccination, JIA was stable on therapy and peripheral blood lymphocyte populations were within normal limits. After vaccination, children were followed for disease activity, infections and production of protective antibodies. RESULTS: There were no serious side effects after vaccination and no varicella infection. Disease activity remained stable. Five patients (83%) produced protective antibodies against varicella virus 6 weeks after the second vaccination. One patient with low level of protective antibodies got mild varicella infection 4 months after the second vaccination. CONCLUSION: Varicella vaccination appears to be safe in our group of six JIA patients treated with biologics. Vaccination does not always protect against varicella infection.

Vaccination coverage among children in kindergarten - United States, 2012-13 school year.

State and local school vaccination requirements are implemented to maintain high vaccination coverage and minimize the risk from vaccine preventable diseases. To assess school vaccination coverage and exemptions, CDC annually analyzes school vaccination coverage data from federally funded immunization programs. These awardees include 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC), five cities, and eight U.S.-affiliated jurisdictions. This report summarizes vaccination coverage from 48 states and DC and exemption rates from 49 states and DC for children entering kindergarten for the 2012-13 school year. Forty-eight states and DC reported vaccination coverage, with medians of 94.5% for 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine; 95.1% for local requirements for diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccination; and 93.8% for 2 doses of varicella vaccine among awardees with a 2-dose requirement. Forty-nine states and DC reported exemption rates, with the median total of 1.8%. Although school entry coverage for most awardees was at or near national Healthy People 2020 targets of maintaining 95% vaccination coverage levels for 2 doses of MMR vaccine, 4 doses of DTaP† vaccine, and 2 doses of varicella vaccine, low vaccination and high exemption levels can cluster within communities, increasing the risk for disease. Reports to CDC are aggregated at the state level; however, local reporting of school vaccination coverage might be accessible by awardees. These local-level data can be used to create evidence-based health communication strategies to help parents understand the risks for vaccine-preventable diseases and the benefits of vaccinations to the health of their children and other kindergarteners.

[Study on epidemiological effect of the freeze-dried attenuated live varicella vaccine].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and epidemiological effect of the Freeze-dried Live attenuated varicella vaccine. METHODS: A random, double-blind control clinical trial was adopted. RESULTS: In the observation period, the incidence of varicella was 0.8 per thousand in the experimental group and 8.7 per thousand in control group. There was a significant difference (B.P=0.000017). Vaccine effectiveness (VE(%)) was 90.8%, the lower limit of 95%CI was 88.7%. CONCLUSION: The varicella vaccine produced by Changchun keygen biological products co., Ltd. was safe and effective.

Economic evaluation of varicella vaccination in Italian children and adolescents according to different intervention strategies: the burden of uncomplicated hospitalised cases.

An economic evaluation of universal varicella vaccination in Italy was performed to assess the potential clinical and economic effects of three different strategies versus no vaccination. By means of the EVITA model, vaccination with two doses in toddlers only (1-1.5 years), adolescents only (13 years) and toddlers with adolescents catch-up programmes were simulated. All universal varicella vaccination strategies including toddlers (with or without an adolescent catch-up programme) turned out to be highly effective in reducing the burden of disease due to varicella. In addition, they lead to significant net savings from the societal perspective but to higher costs compared to return of investment from National Health Service perspective. The huge economic burden of hospitalised uncomplicated varicella cases registered in Italy can partially explain these highly beneficial findings for the societal perspective. Overall, our analysis confirmed the favourable clinical and economic impact of routine varicella vaccination with two doses of vaccine in Italy.