Health effects of routine measles vaccination and supplementary immunisation activities in 14 high-burden countries: a Dynamic Measles Immunization Calculation Engine (DynaMICE) modelling study.
Journal
The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
received:
08
07
2022
revised:
17
04
2023
accepted:
02
05
2023
medline:
24
7
2023
pubmed:
21
7
2023
entrez:
20
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
WHO recommends at least 95% population coverage with two doses of measles-containing vaccine (MCV). Most countries worldwide use routine services to offer a first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) and later, a second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV2). Many countries worldwide conduct supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs), offering vaccination to all people in a specific age range irrespective of previous vaccination history. We aimed to estimate the relative effects of each dose and delivery route in 14 countries with high measles burden. We used an age-structured compartmental dynamic model, the Dynamic Measles Immunization Calculation Engine (DynaMICE), to assess the effects of different vaccination strategies on measles susceptibility and burden during 2000-20 in 14 countries with high measles incidence (containing 53% of the global birth cohort and 78% of the global measles burden). Country-specific routine MCV1 and MCV2 coverage data during 1980-2020 were obtained from the WHO and UNICEF Estimates of National Immunization Coverage database for all modelled countries and SIA data were obtained from the WHO summary of measles and rubella SIAs. We estimated the incremental health effects of different vaccination strategies using prevented cases of measles and deaths from measles and their efficiency using the incremental number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent an additional measles case. Compared with no vaccination, MCV1 implementation was estimated to have prevented 824 million cases of measles and 9·6 million deaths from measles, with a median NNV of 1·41 (IQR 1·35-1·44). Adding routine MCV2 to MCV1 was estimated to have prevented 108 million cases and 404 270 deaths, whereas adding SIAs to MCV1 was estimated to have prevented 256 million cases and 4·4 million deaths. Despite larger incremental effects, adding SIAs to MCV1 (median incremental NNV 6·02, 5·30-7·68) showed reduced efficiency compared with adding routine MCV2 (5·41, 4·76-6·11). Vaccination strategies, including non-selective SIAs, reach a greater proportion of children who are unvaccinated and reduce measles burden more than MCV2 alone, but efficiency is lower because of the wide age range targeted by SIAs. This analysis provides information to help improve the health effects and efficiency of measles vaccination strategies. The interplay between MCV1, MCV2, and SIAs should be considered when planning future measles vaccination strategies. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
WHO recommends at least 95% population coverage with two doses of measles-containing vaccine (MCV). Most countries worldwide use routine services to offer a first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) and later, a second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV2). Many countries worldwide conduct supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs), offering vaccination to all people in a specific age range irrespective of previous vaccination history. We aimed to estimate the relative effects of each dose and delivery route in 14 countries with high measles burden.
METHODS
We used an age-structured compartmental dynamic model, the Dynamic Measles Immunization Calculation Engine (DynaMICE), to assess the effects of different vaccination strategies on measles susceptibility and burden during 2000-20 in 14 countries with high measles incidence (containing 53% of the global birth cohort and 78% of the global measles burden). Country-specific routine MCV1 and MCV2 coverage data during 1980-2020 were obtained from the WHO and UNICEF Estimates of National Immunization Coverage database for all modelled countries and SIA data were obtained from the WHO summary of measles and rubella SIAs. We estimated the incremental health effects of different vaccination strategies using prevented cases of measles and deaths from measles and their efficiency using the incremental number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent an additional measles case.
FINDINGS
Compared with no vaccination, MCV1 implementation was estimated to have prevented 824 million cases of measles and 9·6 million deaths from measles, with a median NNV of 1·41 (IQR 1·35-1·44). Adding routine MCV2 to MCV1 was estimated to have prevented 108 million cases and 404 270 deaths, whereas adding SIAs to MCV1 was estimated to have prevented 256 million cases and 4·4 million deaths. Despite larger incremental effects, adding SIAs to MCV1 (median incremental NNV 6·02, 5·30-7·68) showed reduced efficiency compared with adding routine MCV2 (5·41, 4·76-6·11).
INTERPRETATION
Vaccination strategies, including non-selective SIAs, reach a greater proportion of children who are unvaccinated and reduce measles burden more than MCV2 alone, but efficiency is lower because of the wide age range targeted by SIAs. This analysis provides information to help improve the health effects and efficiency of measles vaccination strategies. The interplay between MCV1, MCV2, and SIAs should be considered when planning future measles vaccination strategies.
FUNDING
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37474227
pii: S2214-109X(23)00220-6
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00220-6
pmc: PMC10369016
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Measles Vaccine
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1194-e1204Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.
Références
BMC Med. 2021 Nov 17;19(1):281
pubmed: 34784922
Vaccine. 2019 Jan 7;37(2):219-222
pubmed: 28760612
Nat Commun. 2019 Apr 9;10(1):1633
pubmed: 30967543
Wkly Epidemiol Rec. ;92(17):205-27
pubmed: 28459148
BMC Med. 2021 Jan 5;19(1):2
pubmed: 33397366
Vaccine. 2021 Mar 1;39(9):1359-1363
pubmed: 33551302
Vaccine. 2015 Mar 3;33(10):1291-6
pubmed: 25541214
Vaccine. 2018 Jan 2;36(1):170-178
pubmed: 29174680
PLoS Med. 2011 Oct;8(10):e1001110
pubmed: 22039353
J Vaccines Vaccin. 2016;7(5):
pubmed: 28690915
Vaccine. 2015 Feb 4;33(6):753-8
pubmed: 25543164
Epidemiol Infect. 2011 Jul;139(7):1039-49
pubmed: 20920382
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Oct;17(10):1089-1097
pubmed: 28807627
Vaccine. 2020 Jan 16;38(3):460-469
pubmed: 31732326
J Infect Dis. 2003 May 15;187 Suppl 1:S102-10
pubmed: 12721900
Vaccine. 2017 Mar 13;35(11):1488-1493
pubmed: 28216186
Vaccine. 2021 Jul 22;39(32):4564-4570
pubmed: 33744046
Vaccine. 2019 Sep 24;37(41):6093-6101
pubmed: 31471145
J Infect Dis. 2011 Jul;204 Suppl 1:S82-9
pubmed: 21666218
PLoS Comput Biol. 2021 Jul 26;17(7):e1009098
pubmed: 34310590
Value Health. 2020 Jul;23(7):891-897
pubmed: 32762991
Elife. 2021 Jul 13;10:
pubmed: 34253291
Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):398-408
pubmed: 33516338
BMC Med. 2018 Jul 4;16(1):102
pubmed: 29970074
Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Apr;39 Suppl 1:i48-55
pubmed: 20348126
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Dec;17(12):e420-e428
pubmed: 28757186
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Dec 06;68(48):1105-1111
pubmed: 31805033
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2002 Apr;11(4):273-6
pubmed: 12049035
J R Soc Interface. 2008 Jan 6;5(18):67-74
pubmed: 17504737
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Apr;7(4):e472-e481
pubmed: 30797735
J Immunol Sci. 2018 Jul 28;Suppl:113-121
pubmed: 30766972
Vaccine. 2020 Nov 17;38(49):7741-7746
pubmed: 33164797
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Nov 12;70(45):1563-1569
pubmed: 34758014