Modelling the household-level impact of a maternal respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in a high-income setting.


Journal

BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 11 2020
Historique:
received: 26 06 2020
accepted: 15 09 2020
entrez: 12 11 2020
pubmed: 13 11 2020
medline: 23 2 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infects almost all children by the age of 2 years, with the risk of hospitalisation highest in the first 6 months of life. Development and licensure of a vaccine to prevent severe RSV illness in infants is a public health priority. A recent phase 3 clinical trial estimated the efficacy of maternal vaccination at 39% over the first 90 days of life. Households play a key role in RSV transmission; however, few estimates of population-level RSV vaccine impact account for household structure. We simulated RSV transmission within a stochastic, individual-based model framework, using an existing demographic model, structured by age and household and parameterised with Australian data, as an exemplar of a high-income country. We modelled vaccination by immunising pregnant women and explicitly linked the immune status of each mother-infant pair. We quantified the impact on children for a range of vaccine properties and uptake levels. We found that a maternal immunisation strategy would have the most substantial impact in infants younger than 3 months, reducing RSV infection incidence in this age group by 16.6% at 70% vaccination coverage. In children aged 3-6 months, RSV infection was reduced by 5.3%. Over the first 6 months of life, the incidence rate for infants born to unvaccinated mothers was 1.26 times that of infants born to vaccinated mothers. The impact in older age groups was more modest, with evidence of infections being delayed to the second year of life. Our findings show that while individual benefit from maternal RSV vaccination could be substantial, population-level reductions may be more modest. Vaccination impact was sensitive to the extent that vaccination prevented infection, highlighting the need for more vaccine trial data.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infects almost all children by the age of 2 years, with the risk of hospitalisation highest in the first 6 months of life. Development and licensure of a vaccine to prevent severe RSV illness in infants is a public health priority. A recent phase 3 clinical trial estimated the efficacy of maternal vaccination at 39% over the first 90 days of life. Households play a key role in RSV transmission; however, few estimates of population-level RSV vaccine impact account for household structure.
METHODS
We simulated RSV transmission within a stochastic, individual-based model framework, using an existing demographic model, structured by age and household and parameterised with Australian data, as an exemplar of a high-income country. We modelled vaccination by immunising pregnant women and explicitly linked the immune status of each mother-infant pair. We quantified the impact on children for a range of vaccine properties and uptake levels.
RESULTS
We found that a maternal immunisation strategy would have the most substantial impact in infants younger than 3 months, reducing RSV infection incidence in this age group by 16.6% at 70% vaccination coverage. In children aged 3-6 months, RSV infection was reduced by 5.3%. Over the first 6 months of life, the incidence rate for infants born to unvaccinated mothers was 1.26 times that of infants born to vaccinated mothers. The impact in older age groups was more modest, with evidence of infections being delayed to the second year of life.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings show that while individual benefit from maternal RSV vaccination could be substantial, population-level reductions may be more modest. Vaccination impact was sensitive to the extent that vaccination prevented infection, highlighting the need for more vaccine trial data.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33176774
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01783-8
pii: 10.1186/s12916-020-01783-8
pmc: PMC7661211
doi:

Substances chimiques

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

319

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R015600/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : GNT1058804
Pays : International

Références

Vaccine. 2017 Oct 27;35(45):6172-6179
pubmed: 28967522
Math Biosci. 2001 Aug;172(2):95-113
pubmed: 11520501
Aust Prescr. 2017 Aug;40(4):122-124
pubmed: 28947846
Epidemiol Infect. 2017 Jan;145(2):266-271
pubmed: 27821195
Med J Aust. 2013 Apr 15;198(7):373-5
pubmed: 23581957
Am J Dis Child. 1986 Jun;140(6):543-6
pubmed: 3706232
Lancet. 2017 Sep 2;390(10098):946-958
pubmed: 28689664
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Mar 05;15:53
pubmed: 25880530
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Jul;17(7):e223-e234
pubmed: 28433702
Women Birth. 2016 Oct;29(5):423-429
pubmed: 26879102
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2015 Dec 16;23(3):189-95
pubmed: 26677198
Curr Opin Immunol. 2019 Aug;59:57-64
pubmed: 31029910
J Infect Dis. 2018 Apr 11;217(9):1356-1364
pubmed: 29390105
Sci Transl Med. 2020 Mar 18;12(535):
pubmed: 32188721
Epidemics. 2016 Sep;16:49-55
pubmed: 27294794
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 21;10(9):e0138018
pubmed: 26390032
Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Jul 1;186(1):109-117
pubmed: 28453607
Elife. 2020 Mar 27;9:
pubmed: 32216871
Epidemics. 2019 Jun;27:1-11
pubmed: 30591267
Lancet Public Health. 2017 Jul 31;2(8):e367-e374
pubmed: 28804787
Vaccine. 2017 Jan 5;35(2):403-409
pubmed: 27914740
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Jul;17(7):e197-e208
pubmed: 28433705
Vaccine. 2020 Jan 10;38(2):251-257
pubmed: 31740097
BMC Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 21;11:105
pubmed: 21510889
J Clin Virol. 2017 Oct;95:90-95
pubmed: 28903080
Epidemics. 2015 Dec;13:56-64
pubmed: 26616042
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 14;13(6):e0197867
pubmed: 29902184
Theor Popul Biol. 2016 Aug;110:78-85
pubmed: 27155294
PLoS Med. 2008 Mar 25;5(3):e74
pubmed: 18366252
BMC Med. 2015 Mar 10;13:49
pubmed: 25857701
Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 May;9(5):291-300
pubmed: 19393959

Auteurs

Patricia T Campbell (PT)

Epidemiology, University of Melbourne, at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Nicholas Geard (N)

Epidemiology, University of Melbourne, at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
School of Computing and Information Systems, Melbourne School of Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Alexandra B Hogan (AB)

MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. a.hogan@imperial.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH