Randomised controlled trial showed long-term efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of varicella vaccines in Norwegian and Swedish children.

AIM: Several countries, such as Norway and Sweden, have not implemented universal varicella vaccination. We present data for Norway and Sweden that were generated by a paediatric multi-country Phase III study over a 10-year period. This assessed the efficacy, antibody persistence and safety of two varicella vaccines containing the same Oka strain. METHODS: This was an observer-blind, controlled trial conducted in 10 European countries. Children aged 12-22 months (n = 5803) were randomised 3:3:1 and vaccinated between 1 September 2005 and 10 May 2006. The two-dose group received two tetravalent measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine doses. The one-dose group received one monovalent varicella vaccine dose after a measles-mumps-rubella vaccine dose. Control group participants received two measles-mumps-rubella vaccine doses. Main study outcomes were vaccine efficacy against confirmed varicella cases and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Vaccine efficacy in the two-dose group was ≥92.1% in both Norwegian and Swedish children compared to 72.3% in Norway and 58.0% in Sweden in the one-dose group. Incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the Norwegian and Swedish study populations. CONCLUSION: Consistent with overall study results, high efficacy against varicella and acceptable safety profiles of the two varicella vaccines were observed in Norwegian and Swedish populations. These findings highlight the benefits of varicella vaccines, particularly when administered as a two-dose schedule.

High overall confidence in childhood vaccination in Norway, slightly lower among the unemployed and those with a lower level of education.

In Norway, childhood immunisation is offered on voluntary basis, free of charge and is delivered through trained nurses at > 650 child health centres and school health services. Maintaining high confidence in the vaccination programme is key to sustaining high vaccine uptake. We aimed to investigate confidence in childhood vaccination in the general population and to identify determinants for lower confidence. In 2017 and 2018, Statistics Norway asked questions on confidence in childhood vaccination (to all respondents) and children's vaccination history (to parents) in their routine cross-sectional survey. Respondents reported their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale. Using a weighted analysis we calculated proportions agreeing [95% confidence interval] by respondent characteristics. Overall, 2169 individuals participated (54% response). 95.8% [94.8-96.7] answered that vaccination is important, 93.4% [92.2-94.4] thought that vaccines are safe, 96.0% [95.0-96.8] thought that vaccines are effective and for 93.4% [92.2-94.4] vaccination was compatible with their basic values. Those with lower level of education expressed lower confidence in vaccination due to conflict with their basic values (88.2% [84.7-91.0] answered positively). Those unemployed expressed lower confidence due to conflict with their basic values (81.9% [71.8-88.9]) and because of concerns about vaccines' safety (83.5% [73.7-90.1]). 96.3% [94.3-97.6] of parents (n = 580) had their children fully vaccinated, despite that one fifth answered that they at least once have had doubts on whether or not to vaccinate their children. There is high confidence in childhood vaccination in Norway. Those with a lower level of education and the unemployed reported comparatively lower confidence. To maintain high confidence in childhood vaccination, we recommend maintaining the well-informed system with easily accessible vaccinations. Furthermore, we recommend maintaining surveillance of vaccine confidence, supplemented with targeted studies on subgroups who are less confident, express doubts and/or oppose vaccination. Those studies should inform communication strategies tailored to subgroups.

Protection against varicella with two doses of combined measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine or one dose of monovalent varicella vaccine: 10-year follow-up of a phase 3 multicentre, observer-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The duration of protection provided by varicella vaccines is unclear. We assessed the 10-year vaccine efficacy of two doses of a combined measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine (MMRV), one live attenuated varicella vaccine (V) dose given after one measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) dose (MMR + V), versus two MMR doses (control vaccine) for the prevention of confirmed varicella. METHODS: This was a phase 3b follow-up of an observer-blinded, randomised, controlled trial. In phase a, children aged 12-22 months (at first vaccination) from Czech Republic (Czechia), Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Sweden were randomly assigned by computer-generated randomisation list (3:3:1) to receive two doses of MMRV, one dose of MMR and one dose of varicella vaccine, or two doses of MMR, 42 days apart. Varicella cases were confirmed by detection of viral DNA, or epidemiological link and clinical assessment, by an independent data monitoring committee; disease severity was based on a modified Vázquez scale. Hazard ratios for MMRV and MMR + V versus MMR estimated in the per-protocol cohort using a Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to calculate vaccine efficacy and 95% CI. Serious adverse events were recorded throughout the study in all vaccinated children. Study objectives were secondary and descriptive. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00226499. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2005, and May 10, 2006, 5803 children (mean age 14·2 months, SD 2·5) were vaccinated. The per-protocol cohort included 2279 children from the MMRV group, 2266 from the MMR + V group, and 744 from the MMR group. From baseline to a median follow-up of 9·8 years, 76 (3%) children in the MMRV group, 469 (21%) in the MMR + V group, and 352 (47%) in the MMR group had varicella. Vaccine efficacy against all varicella was 95·4% (95% CI 94·0-96·4) for MMRV and 67·2% (62·3-71·5) for MMR + V; vaccine efficacy against moderate or severe varicella was 99·1% (97·9-99·6) for MMRV and 89·5% (86·1-92·1) for MMR + V. During phase b, serious adverse events were reported by 290 (15%) of 1961 children in the MMRV group, 317 (16%) of 1978 in the MMR + V group, and 93 (15%) of 641 in the MMR group. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: The 10-years vaccine efficacy observed, suggests that a two-dose schedule of varicella vaccine provided optimum long-term protection for the prevention of varicella by offering individual protection against all severities of disease and leading to a potential reduction in transmission, as observed in the US experience with universal mass vaccination. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Usefulness of health registries when estimating vaccine effectiveness during the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic in Norway.

BACKGROUND: During the 2009-2010 pandemic in Norway, 12 513 laboratory-confirmed cases of pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, were reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS). 2.2 million persons (45% of the population) were vaccinated with an AS03-adjuvanted monovalent vaccine during the pandemic. Most of them were registered in the Norwegian Immunisation Registry (SYSVAK). Based on these registries, we aimed at estimating the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and describing vaccine failures during the pandemic in Norway, in order to evaluate the role of the vaccine as a preventive measure during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study, linking MSIS and SYSVAK with pandemic influenza vaccination as exposure and laboratory-confirmed pandemic influenza as outcome. We measured VE by week and defined two thresholds for immunity; eight and 15 days after vaccination. RESULTS: The weekly VE ranged from 77% to 96% when considering 15 days or more after vaccination as the threshold of immunity and from 73% to 94% when considering eight days or more. Overall, 157 individuals contracted pandemic influenza eight or more days after vaccination (8.4/100,000 vaccinated), of these 58 had onset 15 days or more after vaccination (3.0/100,000 vaccinated). Most of the vaccine failures occurred during the first weeks of the vaccination campaign. More than 30% of the vaccine failures were found in people below 10 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Having available health registries with data regarding cases of specific disease and vaccination makes it feasible to estimate VE in a simple and rapid way. VE was high regardless the immunity threshold chosen. We encourage public health authorities in other countries to set up such registries. It is also important to consider including information on underlying diseases in registries already existing, in order to make it feasible to conduct more complete VE estimations.

Vaccine history, gender and influenza vaccination in a household context.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the effect of the history of vaccination on the current influenza vaccine uptake. The objective of this paper is to study the effects of vaccine history, for each sex separately, on the likelihood of vaccine uptake among single-head households and two-person households, controlling not only for the respondents' own prior vaccination history but also the history of vaccination among possible co-residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used logistic regression and data from a nationally representative telephone survey of the non-institutionalized Norwegian population aged ≥ 65 years to estimate our models (N=354). The survey was carried out in November 2008. RESULTS: The lowest vaccine uptake was found among those who live alone with no prior history of vaccination and among those who live in two-person households where both members had no prior history of vaccination (10-22%). Those who live in two-person households where both members had previously been vaccinated had the highest vaccine uptake (86%). While a man who has previously been vaccinated has a higher likelihood of continued vaccination if his wife also has a prior history of vaccination, a woman with a prior history of vaccination is not dependent on her husband's prior practice with respect to the probability of continued vaccination. Of those who have no history of vaccination, more women than men are vaccinated for the first time when they have a spouse who has a history of vaccination. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the history of vaccination of a co-resident/spouse has an effect above and beyond the respondent's own vaccination history. The results indicate that there are gender differences in the willingness to encourage family members to be vaccinated or to embark upon a familial vaccination regime in order to protect the individual's own personal health and that of other family members from influenza. To the best of our knowledge such gender differences have never been shown before in research on influenza vaccine uptake. However, the finding is in accordance with a number of studies on the role of gender and the positive effect on health and mortality of social support and social control in marriage.