The cost saving opportunity of introducing a card review into measles-containing vaccination campaigns

Health effects of routine measles vaccination and supplementary immunisation activities in 14 high-burden countries: a Dynamic Measles Immunization Calculation Engine (DynaMICE) modelling study

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.

Challenges Addressing Inequalities in Measles Vaccine Coverage in Zambia through a Measles-Rubella Supplementary Immunization Activity during the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Measles-rubella supplementary immunization activities (MR-SIAs) are conducted to address inequalities in coverage and fill population immunity gaps when routine immunization services fail to reach all children with two doses of a measles-containing vaccine (MCV). We used data from a post-campaign coverage survey in Zambia to measure the proportion of measles zero-dose and under-immunized children who were reached by the 2020 MR-SIA and identified reasons associated with persistent inequalities following the MR-SIA.

METHODS

Children between 9 and 59 months were enrolled in a nationally representative, cross-sectional, multistage stratified cluster survey in October 2021 to estimate vaccination coverage during the November 2020 MR-SIA. Vaccination status was determined by immunization card or through caregivers' recall. MR-SIA coverage and the proportion of measles zero-dose and under-immunized children reached by MR-SIA were estimated. Log-binomial models were used to assess risk factors for missing the MR-SIA dose.

RESULTS

Overall, 4640 children were enrolled in the nationwide coverage survey. Only 68.6% (95% CI: 66.7%, 70.6%) received MCV during the MR-SIA. The MR-SIA provided MCV1 to 4.2% (95% CI: 0.9%, 4.6%) and MCV2 to 6.3% (95% CI: 5.6%, 7.1%) of enrolled children, but 58.1% (95% CI: 59.8%, 62.8%) of children receiving the MR-SIA dose had received at least two prior MCV doses. Furthermore, 27.8% of measles zero-dose children were vaccinated through the MR-SIA. The MR-SIA reduced the proportion of measles zero-dose children from 15.1% (95% CI: 13.6%, 16.7%) to 10.9% (95% CI: 9.7%, 12.3%). Zero-dose and under-immunized children were more likely to miss MR-SIA doses (prevalence ratio (PR): 2.81; 95% CI: 1.80, 4.41 and 2.22; 95% CI: 1.21 and 4.07) compared to fully vaccinated children.

CONCLUSIONS

The MR-SIA reached more under-immunized children with MCV2 than measles zero-dose children with MCV1. However, improvement is needed to reach the remaining measles zero-dose children after SIA. One possible solution to address the inequalities in vaccination is to transition from nationwide non-selective SIAs to more targeted and selective strategies.

Added value of the measles-rubella supplementary immunization activity in reaching unvaccinated and under-vaccinated children, a cross-sectional study in five Indian districts, 2018-20

INTRODUCTION

Supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) aim to interrupt measles transmission by reaching susceptible children, including children who have not received the recommended two routine doses of MCV before the SIA. However, both strategies may miss the same children if vaccine doses are highly correlated. How well SIAs reach children missed by routine immunization is a key metric in assessing the added value of SIAs.

METHODS

Children aged 9 months to younger than 5 years were enrolled in cross-sectional household serosurveys conducted in five districts in India following the 2017-2019 measles-rubella (MR) SIA. History of measles containing vaccine (MCV) through routine services or SIA was obtained from documents and verbal recall. Receipt of a first or second MCV dose during the SIA was categorized as "added value" of the SIA in reaching un- and under-vaccinated children.

RESULTS

A total of 1,675 children were enrolled in these post-SIA surveys. The percentage of children receiving a 1st or 2nd dose through the SIA ranged from 12.8% in Thiruvananthapuram District to 48.6% in Dibrugarh District. Although the number of zero-dose children prior to the SIA was small in most sites, the proportion reached by the SIA ranged from 45.8% in Thiruvananthapuram District to 94.9% in Dibrugarh District. Fewer than 7% of children remained measles zero-dose after the MR SIA (range: 1.1-6.4%) compared to up to 28% before the SIA (range: 7.3-28.1%).

DISCUSSION

We demonstrated the MR SIA provided considerable added value in terms of measles vaccination coverage, although there was variability across districts due to differences in routine and SIA coverage, and which children were reached by the SIA. Metrics evaluating the added value of an SIA can help to inform the design of vaccination strategies to better reach zero-dose or undervaccinated children.

Using models to shape measles control and elimination strategies in low- and middle-income countries: A review of recent applications

After many decades of vaccination, measles epidemiology varies greatly between and within countries. National immunization programs are therefore encouraged to conduct regular situation analyses and to leverage models to adapt interventions to local needs. Here, we review applications of models to develop locally tailored interventions to support control and elimination efforts. In general, statistical and semi-mechanistic transmission models can be used to synthesize information from vaccination coverage, measles incidence, demographic, and/or serological data, offering a means to estimate the spatial and age-specific distribution of measles susceptibility. These estimates complete the picture provided by vaccination coverage alone, by accounting for natural immunity. Dynamic transmission models can then be used to evaluate the relative impact of candidate interventions for measles control and elimination and the expected future epidemiology. In most countries, models predict substantial numbers of susceptible individuals outside the age range of routine vaccination, which affects outbreak risk and necessitates additional intervention to achieve elimination. More effective use of models to inform both vaccination program planning and evaluation requires the development of training to enhance broader understanding of models and where feasible, building capacity for modelling in-country, pipelines for rapid evaluation of model predictions using surveillance data, and clear protocols for incorporating model results into decision-making.