Vaccination or mass drug administration against schistosomiasis: a hypothetical cost-effectiveness modelling comparison

Background Schistosomiasis is a neglected tropical disease, targeted by the World Health Organization for reduction in morbidity by 2020. It is caused by parasitic flukes that spread through contamination of local water sources. Traditional control focuses on mass drug administration, which kills the majority of adult worms, targeted at school-aged children. However, these drugs do not confer long-term protection and there are concerns over the emergence of drug resistance. The development of a vaccine against schistosomiasis opens the potential for control methods that could generate long-lasting population-level immunity if they are cost-effective. Methods Using an individual-based transmission model, matched to epidemiological data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of a range of vaccination programmes against mass drug administration, across three transmission settings. Health benefit was measured by calculating the heavy-intensity infection years averted by each intervention, while vaccine costs were assessed against robust estimates for the costs of mass drug administration obtained from data. We also calculated a critical vaccination cost, a cost beyond which vaccination might not be economically favorable, by benchmarking the cost-effectiveness of potential vaccines against the cost-effectiveness of mass drug administration, and examined the effect of different vaccine protection durations. Results We found that sufficiently low-priced vaccines can be more cost-effective than traditional drugs in high prevalence settings, and can lead to a greater reduction in morbidity over shorter time-scales. MDA or vaccination programmes that target the whole community generate the most health benefits, but are generally less cost-effective than those targeting children, due to lower prevalence of schistosomiasis in adults. Conclusions The ultimate cost-effectiveness of vaccination will be highly dependent on multiple vaccine characteristics, such as the efficacy, cost, safety and duration of protection, as well as the subset of population targeted for vaccination. However, our results indicate that if a vaccine could be developed with reasonable characteristics and for a sufficiently low cost, then vaccination programmes can be a highly cost-effective method of controlling schistosomiasis in high-transmission areas. The population-level immunity generated by vaccination will also inevitably improve the chances of interrupting transmission of the disease, which is the long-term epidemiological goal

Commentary on the use of the reproduction number R during the COVID-19 pandemic

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reproduction number R has become a popular epidemiological metric used to communicate the state of the epidemic. At its most basic, R is defined as the average number of secondary infections caused by one primary infected individual. R seems convenient, because the epidemic is expanding if R>1 and contracting if R<1. The magnitude of R indicates by how much transmission needs to be reduced to control the epidemic. Using R in a naïve way can cause new problems. The reasons for this are threefold: (1) There is not just one definition of R but many, and the precise definition of R affects both its estimated value and how it should be interpreted. (2) Even with a particular clearly defined R, there may be different statistical methods used to estimate its value, and the choice of method will affect the estimate. (3) The availability and type of data used to estimate R vary, and it is not always clear what data should be included in the estimation. In this review, we discuss when R is useful, when it may be of use but needs to be interpreted with care, and when it may be an inappropriate indicator of the progress of the epidemic. We also argue that careful definition of R, and the data and methods used to estimate it, can make R a more useful metric for future management of the epidemic

Spontaneous Breathing in Early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Insights From the Large Observational Study to UNderstand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory FailurE Study

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome with or without spontaneous breathing and to investigate whether the effects of spontaneous breathing on outcome depend on acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. DESIGN: Planned secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, multicentre cohort study. SETTING: International sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation and available data for the mode of mechanical ventilation and respiratory rate for the 2 first days. INTERVENTIONS: Analysis of patients with and without spontaneous breathing, defined by the mode of mechanical ventilation and by actual respiratory rate compared with set respiratory rate during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Spontaneous breathing was present in 67% of patients with mild acute respiratory distress syndrome, 58% of patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 46% of patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Patients with spontaneous breathing were older and had lower acute respiratory distress syndrome severity, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, ICU and hospital mortality, and were less likely to be diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome by clinicians. In adjusted analysis, spontaneous breathing during the first 2 days was not associated with an effect on ICU or hospital mortality (33% vs 37%; odds ratio, 1.18 [0.92-1.51]; p = 0.19 and 37% vs 41%; odds ratio, 1.18 [0.93-1.50]; p = 0.196, respectively ). Spontaneous breathing was associated with increased ventilator-free days (13 [0-22] vs 8 [0-20]; p = 0.014) and shorter duration of ICU stay (11 [6-20] vs 12 [7-22]; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous breathing is common in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Spontaneous breathing is not associated with worse outcomes and may hasten liberation from the ventilator and from ICU. Although these results support the use of spontaneous breathing in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome independent of acute respiratory distress syndrome severity, the use of controlled ventilation indicates a bias toward use in patients with higher disease severity. In addition, because the lack of reliable data on inspiratory effort in our study, prospective studies incorporating the magnitude of inspiratory effort and adjusting for all potential severity confounders are required

Identifying associations between diabetes and acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a common co-existing disease in the critically ill. Diabetes mellitus may reduce the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but data from previous studies are conflicting. The objective of this study was to evaluate associations between pre-existing diabetes mellitus and ARDS in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Methods: An ancillary analysis of a global, multi-centre prospective observational study (LUNG SAFE) was undertaken. LUNG SAFE evaluated all patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) over a 4-week period, that required mechanical ventilation and met AHRF criteria. Patients who had their AHRF fully explained by cardiac failure were excluded. Important clinical characteristics were included in a stepwise selection approach (forward and backward selection combined with a significance level of 0.05) to identify a set of independent variables associated with having ARDS at any time, developing ARDS (defined as ARDS occurring after day 2 from meeting AHRF criteria) and with hospital mortality. Furthermore, propensity score analysis was undertaken to account for the differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without diabetes mellitus, and the association between diabetes mellitus and outcomes of interest was assessed on matched samples. Results: Of the 4107 patients with AHRF included in this study, 3022 (73.6%) patients fulfilled ARDS criteria at admission or developed ARDS during their ICU stay. Diabetes mellitus was a pre-existing co-morbidity in 913 patients (22.2% of patients with AHRF). In multivariable analysis, there was no association between diabetes mellitus and having ARDS (OR 0.93 (0.78-1.11); p = 0.39), developing ARDS late (OR 0.79 (0.54-1.15); p = 0.22), or hospital mortality in patients with ARDS (1.15 (0.93-1.42); p = 0.19). In a matched sample of patients, there was no association between diabetes mellitus and outcomes of interest. Conclusions: In a large, global observational study of patients with AHRF, no association was found between diabetes mellitus and having ARDS, developing ARDS, or outcomes from ARDS. Trial registration: NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries

Background: To better understand the epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we investigated the current usage of tracheostomy in patients with ARDS recruited into the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG-SAFE) study. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of LUNG-SAFE, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients receiving invasive or noninvasive ventilation in 50 countries spanning 5 continents. The study was carried out over 4 weeks consecutively in the winter of 2014, and 459 ICUs participated. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of patients that received tracheostomy, in the cohort of patients that developed ARDS on day 1-2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and in a subsequent propensity-matched cohort. Results: Of the 2377 patients with ARDS that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 309 (13.0%) underwent tracheostomy during their ICU stay. Patients from high-income European countries (n = 198/1263) more frequently underwent tracheostomy compared to patients from non-European high-income countries (n = 63/649) or patients from middle-income countries (n = 48/465). Only 86/309 (27.8%) underwent tracheostomy on or before day 7, while the median timing of tracheostomy was 14 (Q1-Q3, 7-21) days after onset of ARDS. In the subsample matched by propensity score, ICU and hospital stay were longer in patients with tracheostomy. While patients with tracheostomy had the highest survival probability, there was no difference in 60-day or 90-day mortality in either the patient subgroup that survived for at least 5 days in ICU, or in the propensity-matched subsample. Conclusions: Most patients that receive tracheostomy do so after the first week of critical illness. Tracheostomy may prolong patient survival but does not reduce 60-day or 90-day mortality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

Defining a prevalence level to describe the elimination of lymphatic filariasis (LF) transmission and designing monitoring and evaluating (M&E) programmes post the cessation of mass drug administration (MDA)

The global decline in prevalence of lymphatic filariasis has been one of the major successes of the WHO’s NTD programme. The recommended strategy of intensive, community-wide mass drug administration, aims to break localised transmission by either reducing the prevalence of microfilaria positive infections to below 1%, or antigen positive infections to below 2%. After the threshold is reached, and mass drug administration is stopped, geographically defined evaluation units must pass Transmission Assessment Surveys to demonstrate that transmission has been interrupted. In this study, we use an empirically parameterised stochastic transmission model to investigate the appropriateness of 1% microfilaria-positive prevalence as a stopping threshold, and statistically evaluate how well various monitoring prevalence-thresholds predict elimination or disease resurgence in the future by calculating their predictive value. Our results support the 1% filaremia prevalence target as appropriate stopping criteria. However, because at low prevalence-levels random events dominate the transmission dynamics, we find single prevalence measurements have poor predictive power for predicting resurgence, which suggests alternative criteria for restarting MDA may be beneficial

Defining a prevalence level to describe the elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis (LF) transmission and designing monitoring & evaluating (M&E) programmes post the cessation of mass drug administration (MDA)

The global decline in prevalence of lymphatic filariasis has been one of the major successes of the WHO’s NTD programme. The recommended strategy of intensive, community-wide mass drug administration, aims to break localised transmission by either reducing the prevalence of microfilaria positive infections to below 1%, or antigen positive infections to below 2%. After the threshold is reached, and mass drug administration is stopped, geographically defined evaluation units must pass Transmission Assessment Surveys to demonstrate that transmission has been interrupted. In this study, we use an empirically parameterised stochastic transmission model to investigate the appropriateness of 1% microfilaria-positive prevalence as a stopping threshold, and statistically evaluate how well various monitoring prevalence-thresholds predict elimination or disease resurgence in the future by calculating their predictive value. Our results support the 1% filaremia prevalence target as appropriate stopping criteria. However, because at low prevalence-levels random events dominate the transmission dynamics, we find single prevalence measurements have poor predictive power for predicting resurgence, which suggests alternative criteria for restarting MDA may be beneficial

Policy implications of the potential use of a novel vaccine to prevent infection with schistosoma mansoni with or without mass drug administration

Schistosomiasis is one of the most important neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) affecting millions of people in 79 different countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has specified two control goals to be achieved by 2020 and 2025 - morbidity control and elimination as a public health problem (EPHP). Mass drug administration (MDA) is the main method for schistosomiasis control but it has sometimes proved difficult to both secure adequate supplies of the most efficacious drug praziquantel to treat the millions infected either annually or biannually, and to achieve high treatment coverage in targeted communities in regions of endemic infection. The development of alternative control methods remains a priority. In this paper, using stochastic individual-based models, we analyze whether the addition of a novel vaccine alone or in combination with drug treatment, is a more effective control strategy, in terms of achieving the WHO goals, as well as the time and costs to achieve these goals when compared to MDA alone. The key objective of our analyses is to help facilitate decision making for moving a promising candidate vaccine through the phase I, II and III trials in humans to a final product for use in resource poor settings. We find that in low to moderate transmission settings, both vaccination and MDA are highly likely to achieve the WHO goals within 15 years and are likely to be cost-effective. In high transmission settings, MDA alone is unable to achieve the goals, whereas vaccination is able to achieve both goals in combination with MDA. In these settings Vaccination is cost-effective, even for short duration vaccines, so long as vaccination costs up to US$7.60 per full course of vaccination. The public health value of the vaccine depends on the duration of vaccine protection, the baseline prevalence prior to vaccination and the WHO goal