6 research outputs found

    Evaluation Of Serogroup C And Acwy Meningococcal Vaccine Programs: Projected Impact On Disease Burden According To A Stochastic Two-Strain Dynamic Model

    Get PDF
    Objective: Advisory committees in Canada and the United States have updated recommendations for quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccines against serogroups A, C, W135, and Y. Our objective was to evaluate optimally effective meningococcal vaccination policies using a stochastic dynamic model. Canada was used as an example. Methods: Our stochastic dynamic model of Neisseria meningitidis (Nm) transmission in an age-structured population assumed partial cross-immunity among two aggregated serogroup categories: 'AWY' containing A, W135, and Y; and 'Other' containing B, C, and ungroupable types. We compared the impact of monovalent C versus quadrivalent ACWY vaccination on Nm carriage and invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). Our model was parameterized with Canadian epidemiological and demographic data and employed probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: Routine infant immunization at 12 months and boosting at 15 years with a quadrivalent vaccine is projected to have the largest impact on total IMD incidence: a 74% reduction over 40 years. Routine infant immunization with a monovalent vaccine at 12 months only has much less impact and also generates strain replacement appearing after approximately ten years of continuous use. Conclusions: Immunizing infants at 12 months and boosting adolescents at 15 years with an ACWY vaccine is predicted to be most effective at reducing IMD incidence.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S

    A cost-utility analysis of cervical cancer vaccination in preadolescent Canadian females

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite the fact that approximately 70% of Canadian women undergo cervical cancer screening at least once every 3 years, approximately 1,300 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer and approximately 380 died from it in 2008. This study estimates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccinating 12-year old Canadian females with an AS04-adjuvanted cervical cancer vaccine. The indirect effect of vaccination, via herd immunity, is also estimated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A 12-health-state 1-year-cycle Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime HPV related events for a cohort of 12-year old females. Annual transition probabilities between health-states were derived from published literature and Canadian population statistics. The model was calibrated using Canadian cancer statistics. From a healthcare perspective, the cost-effectiveness of introducing a vaccine with efficacy against HPV-16/18 and evidence of cross-protection against other oncogenic HPV types was evaluated in a population undergoing current screening practices. The base-case analysis included 70% screening coverage, 75% vaccination coverage, 135/doseforvaccine,and3135/dose for vaccine, and 3% discount rate on future costs and health effects. Conservative herd immunity effects were taken into account by estimated HPV incidence using a mathematical model parameterized by reported age-stratified sexual mixing data. Sensitivity analyses were performed to address parameter uncertainties.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Vaccinating 12-year old females (n = 100,000) was estimated to prevent between 390-633 undiscounted cervical cancer cases (reduction of 47%-77%) and 168-275 undiscounted deaths (48%-78%) over their lifetime, depending on whether or not herd immunity and cross-protection against other oncogenic HPV types were included. Vaccination was estimated to cost 18,672-$31,687 per QALY-gained, the lower range representing inclusion of cross-protective efficacy and herd immunity. The cost per QALY-gained was most sensitive to duration of vaccine protection, discount rate, and the correlation between probability of screening and probability of vaccination.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In the context of current screening patterns, vaccination of 12-year old Canadian females with an ASO4-ajuvanted cervical cancer vaccine is estimated to significantly reduce cervical cancer and mortality, and is a cost-effective option. However, the economic attractiveness of vaccination is impacted by the vaccine's duration of protection and the discount rate used in the analysis.</p

    Canadian oncogenic human papillomavirus cervical infection prevalence: Systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection prevalence is required to determine optimal vaccination strategies. We systematically reviewed the prevalence of oncogenic cervical HPV infection among Canadian females prior to immunization.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included studies reporting DNA-confirmed oncogenic HPV prevalence estimates among Canadian females identified through searching electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE) and public health websites. Two independent reviewers screened literature results, abstracted data and appraised study quality. Prevalence estimates were meta-analyzed among routine screening populations, HPV-positive, and by cytology/histology results.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty studies plus 21 companion reports were included after screening 837 citations and 120 full-text articles. Many of the studies did not address non-response bias (74%) or use a representative sampling strategy (53%).</p> <p>Age-specific prevalence was highest among females aged < 20 years and slowly declined with increasing age. Across all populations, the highest prevalence estimates from the meta-analyses were observed for HPV types 16 (routine screening populations, 8 studies: 8.6% [95% confidence interval 6.5-10.7%]; HPV-infected, 9 studies: 43.5% [28.7-58.2%]; confirmed cervical cancer, 3 studies: 48.8% [34.0-63.6%]) and 18 (routine screening populations, 8 studies: 3.3% [1.5-5.1%]; HPV-infected, 9 studies: 13.6% [6.1-21.1%], confirmed cervical cancer, 4 studies: 17.1% [6.4-27.9%].</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results support vaccinating females < 20 years of age, along with targeted vaccination of some groups (e.g., under-screened populations). The highest prevalence occurred among HPV types 16 and 18, contributing a combined cervical cancer prevalence of 65.9%. Further cancer protection is expected from cross-protection of non-vaccine HPV types. Poor study quality and heterogeneity suggests that high-quality studies are needed.</p

    Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Hepatitis A Vaccine: A Systematic Review to Explore the Effect of Methodological Quality on the Economic Attractiveness of Vaccination Strategies

    No full text
    Hepatitis A vaccines have been available for more than a decade. Because the burden of hepatitis A virus has fallen in developed countries, the appropriate role of vaccination programmes, especially universal vaccination strategies, remains unclear. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a useful method of relating the costs of vaccination to its benefits, and may inform policy. This article systematically reviews the evidence on the cost effectiveness of hepatitis A vaccination in varying populations, and explores the effects of methodological quality and key modelling issues on the cost-effectiveness ratios. Cost-effectiveness/cost-utility studies of hepatitis A vaccine were identified via a series of literature searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, HSTAR and SSCI). Citations and full-text articles were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Reference searching, author searches and expert consultation ensured literature saturation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were abstracted for base-case analyses, converted to $US, year 2005 values, and categorised to reflect various levels of cost effectiveness. Quality of reporting, methodological issues and key modelling issues were assessed using frameworks published in the literature. Thirty-one cost-effectiveness studies (including 12 cost-utility analyses) were included from full-text article review (n = 58) and citation screening (n = 570). These studies evaluated universal mass vaccination (n = 14), targeted vaccination (n = 17) and vaccination of susceptibles (i.e. individuals initially screened for antibody and, if susceptible, vaccinated) [n = 13]. For universal vaccination, 50% of the ICERs wereCost-effectiveness, Cost-utility, Hepatitis-A, Hepatitis-A-hepatitis-B-vaccine, Hepatitis-A-vaccine, Modelling
    corecore