The economic cost of measles: Healthcare, public health and societal costs of the 2012-13 outbreak in Merseyside, UK.

BACKGROUND: Measles is a highly contagious vaccine-preventable infection that caused large outbreaks in England in 2012 and 2013 in areas which failed to achieve herd protection levels (95%) consistently. We sought to quantify the economic costs associated with the 2012-13 Merseyside measles outbreak, relative to the cost of extending preventative vaccination to secure herd protection. METHODS: A costing model based on a critical literature review was developed. A workshop and interviews were held with key stakeholders in the Merseyside outbreak to understand the pathway of a measles case and then quantify healthcare activity and costs for the main NHS providers and public health team incurred during the initial four month period to May 2012. These data were used to model the total costs of the full outbreak to August 2013, comprising those to healthcare providers for patient treatment, public health and societal productivity losses. The modelled total cost of the full outbreak was compared to the cost of extending the preventative vaccination programme to achieve herd protection. FINDINGS: The Merseyside outbreak included 2458 reported cases. The estimated cost of the outbreak was £ 4.4m (sensitivity analysis £ 3.9 m to £ 5.2m) comprising 15% (£ 0.7 m) NHS patient treatment costs, 40% (£ 1.8m) public health costs and 44% (£ 2.0m) for societal productivity losses. In comparison, over the previous five years in Cheshire and Merseyside a further 11,793 MMR vaccinations would have been needed to achieve herd protection at an estimated cost of £ 182,909 (4% of the total cost of the measles outbreak). INTERPRETATION: Failure to consistently reach MMR uptake levels of 95% across all localities and sectors (achieve herd protection) risks comparatively higher economic costs associated with the containment (including healthcare costs) and implementation of effective public health management of outbreaks. FUNDING: Commissioned by the Cheshire and Merseyside Public Health England Centre.

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: summary of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vaccination of immunocompromised patients is recommended in many national guidelines to protect against severe or complicated influenza infection. However, due to uncertainties over the evidence base, implementation is frequently patchy and dependent on individual clinical discretion. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the evidence for influenza vaccination in this patient group. Healthcare databases and grey literature were searched and screened for eligibility. Data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were undertaken in duplicate, and results were synthesised narratively and using meta-analysis where possible. Our data show that whilst the serological response following vaccination of immunocompromised patients is less vigorous than in healthy controls, clinical protection is still meaningful, with only mild variation in adverse events between aetiological groups. Although we encountered significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity in many of our meta-analyses, we advocate that immunocompromised patients should be targeted for influenza vaccination.

The relationship between subjective wellbeing, low income and substance use among schoolchildren in the north west of England: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The consumption of tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs by young people is a public health concern. This study aimed to explore the associations between subjective wellbeing, living in a low-income household and substance use by schoolchildren. METHODS: Data were analysed from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of schoolchildren in England (Tellus4, 2009). Participants were 3903 children aged 10 and 15 years from two local authorities in the North West. Eligibility for free school meals provided a proxy for living in a low-income household. Multiple logistic regression was conducted with the main outcome measure, a composite indicator of self-reported regular substance use. RESULTS: More boys than girls had experimented with drugs or alcohol, but in the fourth year of secondary education, girls were significantly more likely than boys to have been drunk (P ≤ 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, older age was the most important factor associated with the consumption of substances. Living in a low-income household was associated with substance use, adjusting for age and subjective wellbeing (adj. OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.36-2.34). Respondents who reported being happy (adj. OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.52-0.86) or able to communicate with their family (adj. OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.39-0.65), were less likely to be regular users. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to prevent regular substance use should be carefully targeted by age. Policies aimed at social determinants may be an important adjunct to individual-level interventions to reduce some inequalities in health associated with substance misuse.

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis from a public health policy perspective.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised patients are vulnerable to severe or complicated influenza infection. Vaccination is widely recommended for this group. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients in terms of preventing influenza-like illness and laboratory confirmed influenza, serological response and adverse events. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Electronic databases and grey literature were searched and records were screened against eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively and meta-analyses were conducted where feasible. Heterogeneity was assessed using I(2) and publication bias was assessed using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Many of the 209 eligible studies included an unclear or high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a significant effect of preventing influenza-like illness (odds ratio [OR]=0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.16-0.34; p<0.001) and laboratory confirmed influenza infection (OR=0.15; 95% CI=0.03-0.63; p=0.01) through vaccinating immunocompromised patie nts compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls. We found no difference in the odds of influenza-like illness compared to vaccinated immunocompetent controls. The pooled odds of seroconversion were lower in vaccinated patients compared to immunocompetent controls for seasonal influenza A(H1N1), A(H3N2) and B. A similar trend was identified for seroprotection. Meta-analyses of seroconversion showed higher odds in vaccinated patients compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls, although this reached significance for influenza B only. Publication bias was not detected and narrative synthesis supported our findings. No consistent evidence of safety concerns was identified. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Infection prevention and control strategies should recommend vaccinating immunocompromised patients. Potential for bias and confounding and the presence of heterogeneity mean the evidence reviewed is generally weak, although the directions of effects are consistent. Areas for further research are identified.