Evaluation of the effectiveness of Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine introduction against radiologically-confirmed hospitalized pneumonia in young children in Ukraine

Invasive Haemophilus influenzae Infections after 3 Decades of Hib Protein Conjugate Vaccine Use

Haemophilus influenzae serotype b (Hib) was previously the most common cause of bacterial meningitis and an important etiologic agent of pneumonia in children aged <5 years. Its major virulence factor is the polyribosyl ribitol phosphate (PRP) polysaccharide capsule. In the 1980s, PRP-protein conjugate Hib vaccines were developed and are now included in almost all national immunization programs, achieving a sustained decline in invasive Hib infections. However, invasive Hib disease has not yet been eliminated in countries with low vaccine coverage, and sporadic outbreaks of Hib infection still occur occasionally in countries with high vaccine coverage. Over the past 2 decades, other capsulated serotypes have been recognized increasingly as causing invasive infections. H. influenzae serotype a (Hia) is now a major cause of invasive infection in Indigenous communities of North America, prompting a possible requirement for an Hia conjugate vaccine. H. influenzae serotypes e and f are now more common than serotype b in Europe. Significant year-to-year increases in nontypeable H. influenzae invasive infections have occurred in many regions of the world. Invasive H. influenzae infections are now seen predominantly in patients at the extremes of life and those with underlying comorbidities. This review provides a comprehensive and critical overview of the current global epidemiology of invasive H. influenzae infections in different geographic regions of the world. It discusses those now at risk of invasive Hib disease, describes the emergence of other severe invasive H. influenzae infections, and emphasizes the importance of long-term, comprehensive, clinical and microbiologic surveillance to monitor a vaccine's impact.

Child health care system in Ukraine

The child healthcare system in Ukraine is coordinated and managed at a central level by the Ministry of Health and at a local level by the regional health authorities. The Ministry of Health has executive the power for the implementation of state health policies and controls and manages state-owned health facilities. The system of public funding for the pediatric healthcare system is divided into two sources: central and local. Primary healthcare is organized by the National Health Service of Ukraine. Secondary level healthcare is mostly organized by the Ministry of Health, which gives money for hospitals and medical centers. Since 2014, due to reform and decentralization in Ukraine, local, regional, and city administrations received money from the Ukrainian government for the formation of decentralized budgets.

Should Controls With Respiratory Symptoms Be Excluded From Case-Control Studies of Pneumonia Etiology? Reflections From the PERCH Study

Many pneumonia etiology case-control studies exclude controls with respiratory illness from enrollment or analyses. Herein we argue that selecting controls regardless of respiratory symptoms provides the least biased estimates of pneumonia etiology. We review 3 reasons investigators may choose to exclude controls with respiratory symptoms in light of epidemiologic principles of control selection and present data from the Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH) study where relevant to assess their validity. We conclude that exclusion of controls with respiratory symptoms will result in biased estimates of etiology. Randomly selected community controls, with or without respiratory symptoms, as long as they do not meet the criteria for case-defining pneumonia, are most representative of the general population from which cases arose and the least subject to selection bias.

Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies: Data collection, analysis and reporting results

The case-control methodology is frequently used to evaluate vaccine effectiveness post-licensure. The results of such studies provide important insight into the level of protection afforded by vaccines in a 'real world' context, and are commonly used to guide vaccine policy decisions. However, the potential for bias and confounding are important limitations to this method, and the results of a poorly conducted or incorrectly interpreted case-control study can mislead policies. In 2012, a group of experts met to review recent experience with case-control studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness; we summarize the recommendations of that group regarding best practices for data collection, analysis, and presentation of the results of case-control vaccine effectiveness studies. Vaccination status is the primary exposure of interest, but can be challenging to assess accurately and with minimal bias. Investigators should understand factors associated with vaccination as well as the availability of documented vaccination status in the study context; case-control studies may not be a valid method for evaluating vaccine effectiveness in settings where many children lack a documented immunization history. To avoid bias, it is essential to use the same methods and effort gathering vaccination data from cases and controls. Variables that may confound the association between illness and vaccination are also important to capture as completely as possible, and where relevant, adjust for in the analysis according to the analytic plan. In presenting results from case-control vaccine effectiveness studies, investigators should describe enrollment among eligible cases and controls as well as the proportion with no documented vaccine history. Emphasis should be placed on confidence intervals, rather than point estimates, of vaccine effectiveness. Case-control studies are a useful approach for evaluating vaccine effectiveness; however careful attention must be paid to the collection, analysis and presentation of the data in order to best inform evidence-based vaccine policies.

Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies: Preparation, design, and enrollment of cases and controls

Case-control studies are commonly used to evaluate effectiveness of licensed vaccines after deployment in public health programs. Such studies can provide policy-relevant data on vaccine performance under ‘real world’ conditions, contributing to the evidence base to support and sustain introduction of new vaccines. However, case-control studies do not measure the impact of vaccine introduction on disease at a population level, and are subject to bias and confounding, which may lead to inaccurate results that can misinform policy decisions. In 2012, a group of experts met to review recent experience with case-control studies evaluating the effectiveness of several vaccines; here we summarize the recommendations of that group regarding best practices for planning, design and enrollment of cases and controls. Rigorous planning and preparation should focus on understanding the study context including healthcare-seeking and vaccination practices. Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies are best carried out soon after vaccine introduction because high coverage creates strong potential for confounding. Endpoints specific to the vaccine target are preferable to non-specific clinical syndromes since the proportion of non-specific outcomes preventable through vaccination may vary over time and place, leading to potentially confusing results. Controls should be representative of the source population from which cases arise, and are generally recruited from the community or health facilities where cases are enrolled. Matching of controls to cases for potential confounding factors is commonly used, although should be reserved for a limited number of key variables believed to be linked to both vaccination and disease. Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies can provide information useful to guide policy decisions and vaccine development, however rigorous preparation and design is essential.

High pneumonia lifetime-ever incidence in Beijing children compared with locations in other countries, and implications for national PCV and Hib vaccination

OBJECTIVES

To compare the proportion of Beijing children who have ever had pneumonia (%Pneumonia) to those in other locations, and to estimate by how much national vaccine coverage with Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV) and Haemophilus Influenzae Type b (Hib) could reduce Beijing %Pneumonia.

METHODS

%Pneumonia was obtained for each age group from 1 to 8 years inclusive from 5,876 responses to a cross-sectional questionnaire. Literature searches were conducted for world-wide reports of %Pneumonia. Previous vaccine trials conducted worldwide were used to estimate the pneumococcal (S. pneumoniae) and Hib (H. influenzae) burdens and %Pneumonia as well as the potential for PCV and Hib vaccines to reduce Beijing children's %Pneumonia.

FINDINGS

The majority of pneumonia cases occurred by the age of three. The cumulative %Pneumonia for 3-8 year-old Beijing children, 26.9%, was only slightly higher than the 25.4% for the discrete 3 year-old age group, similar to trends for Tianjin (China) and Texas (USA). Beijing's %Pneumonia is disproportionally high relative to its Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, and markedly higher than %Pneumonia in the US and other high GNI per capita countries. Chinese diagnostic guidelines recommend chest X-ray confirmation while most other countries discourage it in favor of clinical diagnosis. Literature review shows that chest X-ray confirmation returns far fewer pneumonia diagnoses than clinical diagnosis. Accordingly, Beijing's %Pneumonia is likely higher than indicated by raw numbers. Vaccine trials suggest that national PCV and Hib vaccination could reduce Beijing's %Pneumonia from 26.9% to 19.7% and 24.9% respectively.

CONCLUSION

National PCV and Hib vaccination programs would substantially reduce Beijing children's pneumonia incidence.

Early indication for a reduced burden of radiologically confirmed pneumonia in children following the introduction of routine vaccination against Haemophilus influenzae type b in Nha Trang, Vietnam

INTRODUCTION

Despite the global success of Hib vaccination in reducing disease and mortality, uncertainty about the disease burden and the potential impact of Hib vaccination in Southeast Asia has delayed the introduction of vaccination in some countries in the region. Hib vaccination was introduced throughout Vietnam in July 2010 without catch-up. In an observational, population based surveillance study we estimated the impact of routine Hib vaccination on all cause radiologically confirmed childhood pneumonia in Nha Trang, Vietnam.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2007 active hospital based surveillance was established in Khanh Hoa General Hospital, the only hospital in Nha Trang, Khanh Hoa province. Nasopharyngeal samples and chest radiographs are taken routinely from all children diagnosed with acute respiratory illness on admission. For admissions between 02/2007 and 03/2012 chest radiographs were interpreted for the presence of WHO primary endpoint pneumonia and nasopharyngeal swabs were analysed by PCR for the presence of Influenza A or B, RSV and rhinovirus. We employed Poisson regression to estimate the impact of Hib vaccination on radiologically confirmed pneumonia (RCP) while statistically accounting for potential differences in viral circulation in the post vaccination era which could have biased the estimate.

RESULTS

Of 3151 cases admitted during the study period, 166 had RCP and major viruses were detected in 1601. The adjusted annual incidence of RCP in children younger than 5 years declined by 39% (12-58%) after introduction of Hib vaccination. This decline was most pronounced in children less than 2 years old, adjusted IRR: 0.52 (0.33-0.81), and no significant impact was observed in the 2-4 years old who were not eligible for vaccination, adjusted IRR: 0.96 (0.52-1.72).

DISCUSSION

We present early evidence that the burden of Hib associated RCP in Nha Trang before vaccination was substantial and that shortly after introduction to the routine childhood immunisation scheme vaccination has substantially reduced that burden.

Respiratory risks from household air pollution in low and middle income countries

A third of the world's population uses solid fuel derived from plant material (biomass) or coal for cooking, heating, or lighting. These fuels are smoky, often used in an open fire or simple stove with incomplete combustion, and result in a large amount of household air pollution when smoke is poorly vented. Air pollution is the biggest environmental cause of death worldwide, with household air pollution accounting for about 3·5-4 million deaths every year. Women and children living in severe poverty have the greatest exposures to household air pollution. In this Commission, we review evidence for the association between household air pollution and respiratory infections, respiratory tract cancers, and chronic lung diseases. Respiratory infections (comprising both upper and lower respiratory tract infections with viruses, bacteria, and mycobacteria) have all been associated with exposure to household air pollution. Respiratory tract cancers, including both nasopharyngeal cancer and lung cancer, are strongly associated with pollution from coal burning and further data are needed about other solid fuels. Chronic lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis in women, are associated with solid fuel use for cooking, and the damaging effects of exposure to household air pollution in early life on lung development are yet to be fully described. We also review appropriate ways to measure exposure to household air pollution, as well as study design issues and potential effective interventions to prevent these disease burdens. Measurement of household air pollution needs individual, rather than fixed in place, monitoring because exposure varies by age, gender, location, and household role. Women and children are particularly susceptible to the toxic effects of pollution and are exposed to the highest concentrations. Interventions should target these high-risk groups and be of sufficient quality to make the air clean. To make clean energy available to all people is the long-term goal, with an intermediate solution being to make available energy that is clean enough to have a health impact.