The Clinical and Economic Impact of Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccinations to Prevent Measles Importations From US Pediatric Travelers Returning From Abroad

BACKGROUND

Pediatric international travelers account for nearly half of measles importations in the United States. Over one third of pediatric international travelers depart the United States without the recommended measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations: 2 doses for travelers ≥12 months and 1 dose for travelers 6 to <12 months.

METHODS

We developed a model to compare 2 strategies among a simulated cohort of international travelers (6 months to <6 years): (1) No pretravel health encounter (PHE): travelers depart with baseline MMR vaccination status; (2) PHE: MMR-eligible travelers are offered vaccination. All pediatric travelers experience a destination-specific risk of measles exposure (mean, 30 exposures/million travelers). If exposed to measles, travelers' age and MMR vaccination status determine the risk of infection (range, 3%-90%). We included costs of medical care, contact tracing, and lost wages from the societal perspective. We varied inputs in sensitivity analyses. Model outcomes included projected measles cases, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($/quality-adjusted life year [QALY], cost-effectiveness threshold ≤$100 000/QALY).

RESULTS

Compared with no PHE, PHE would avert 57 measles cases at $9.2 million/QALY among infant travelers and 7 measles cases at $15.0 million/QALY among preschool-aged travelers. Clinical benefits of PHE would be greatest for infants but cost-effective only for travelers to destinations with higher risk for measles exposure (ie, ≥160 exposures/million travelers) or if more US-acquired cases resulted from an infected traveler, such as in communities with limited MMR coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretravel MMR vaccination provides the greatest clinical benefit for infant travelers and can be cost-effective before travel to destinations with high risk for measles exposure or from communities with low MMR vaccination coverage.

Clinical Impact, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Expanded Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing in Massachusetts

BACKGROUND

We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model.

METHODS

We compared 4 testing strategies: (1) hospitalized: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing only for patients with severe/critical symptoms warranting hospitalization; (2) symptomatic: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms, with self-isolation if positive; (3) symptomatic + asymptomatic once: symptomatic and 1-time PCR for the entire population; and (4) symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly: symptomatic with monthly retesting for the entire population. We examined effective reproduction numbers (Re = 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We assumed homogeneous mixing among the Massachusetts population (excluding those residing in long-term care facilities). We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70%/100%), and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180 days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]).

RESULTS

At Re = 0.9, symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly vs hospitalized resulted in a 64% reduction in infections and a 46% reduction in deaths, but required >66-fold more tests/day with 5-fold higher costs. Symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly had an ICER <$100 000/QALY only when Re ≥1.6; when test cost was ≤$3, every 14-day testing was cost-effective at all Re examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to testing only those whose symptoms warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Despite modest sensitivity, low-cost, repeat screening of the entire population could be cost-effective in all epidemic settings.

Clinical Impact, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness of Expanded SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Massachusetts

Background We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model. Methods We compared five testing strategies: 1) PCR-severe-only: PCR testing only patients with severe/critical symptoms; 2) Self-screen: PCR-severe-only plus self-assessment of COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 3) PCR-any-symptom: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 4) PCR-all: PCR-any-symptom and one-time PCR for the entire population; and, 5) PCR-all-repeat: PCR-all with monthly re-testing. We examined effective reproduction numbers (R e , 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70/100%) and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180-days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). Results In all scenarios, PCR-all-repeat would lead to the best clinical outcomes and PCR-severe-only would lead to the worst; at R e 0.9, PCR-all-repeat vs. PCR-severe-only resulted in a 63% reduction in infections and a 44% reduction in deaths, but required >65-fold more tests/day with 4-fold higher costs. PCR-all-repeat had an ICER <$100,000/QALY only when R e ≥1.8. At all R e values, PCR-any-symptom was cost-saving compared to other strategies. Conclusions Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to restricting testing to only those with symptoms severe enough to warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Universal screening would be cost-effective when paired with monthly retesting in settings where the COVID-19 pandemic is surging.

Clinical Practices for Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination Among US Pediatric International Travelers

IMPORTANCE

The US population is experiencing a resurgence of measles, with more than 1000 cases during the first 6 months of 2019. Imported measles cases among returning international travelers are the source of most US measles outbreaks, and these importations can be reduced with pretravel measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination of pediatric travelers. Although it is estimated that children account for less than 10% of US international travelers, pediatric travelers account for 47% of all known measles importations.

OBJECTIVE

To examine clinical practice regarding MMR vaccination of pediatric international travelers and to identify reasons for nonvaccination of pediatric travelers identified as MMR eligible.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study of pediatric travelers (ages ≥6 months and <18 years) attending pretravel consultation at 29 sites associated with Global TravEpiNet (GTEN), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-supported consortium of clinical sites that provide pretravel consultations, was performed from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination among MMR vaccination-eligible pediatric travelers.

RESULTS

Of 14 602 pretravel consultations for pediatric international travelers, 2864 travelers (19.6%; 1475 [51.5%] males; 1389 [48.5%] females) were eligible to receive pretravel MMR vaccination at the time of the consultation: 365 of 398 infants aged 6 to 12 months (91.7%), 2161 of 3623 preschool-aged travelers aged 1 to 6 years (59.6%), and 338 of 10 581 school-aged travelers aged 6 to 18 years (3.2%). Of 2864 total MMR vaccination-eligible travelers, 1182 (41.3%) received the MMR vaccine and 1682 (58.7%) did not. The MMR vaccination-eligible travelers who did not receive vaccine included 161 of 365 infants (44.1%), 1222 of 2161 preschool-aged travelers (56.5%), and 299 of 338 school-aged travelers (88.5%). We observed a diversity of clinical practice at different GTEN sites. In multivariable analysis, MMR vaccination-eligible pediatric travelers were less likely to be vaccinated at the pretravel consultation if they were school-aged (model 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.24-0.42; P < .001]; model 2: OR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.14-0.47; P < .001]) or evaluated at specific GTEN sites (South: OR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01-0.52; P < .001]; West: OR, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.02-0.47; P < .001]). The most common reasons for nonvaccination were clinician decision not to administer MMR vaccine (621 of 1682 travelers [36.9%]) and guardian refusal (612 [36.4%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although most infant and preschool-aged travelers evaluated at GTEN sites were eligible for pretravel MMR vaccination, only 41.3% were vaccinated during pretravel consultation, mostly because of clinician decision or guardian refusal. Strategies may be needed to improve MMR vaccination among pediatric travelers and to reduce measles importations and outbreaks in the United States.

2769. The Clinical and Economic Impact of MMR Vaccinations to Prevent Measles Importations from US Pediatric Travelers Returning from Abroad

Background

Although pediatric travelers comprise < 10% of US international travelers, they account for almost half of all measles importations among returning travelers. For travelers 1–18 years with no other evidence of measles immunity, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends 2 MMR vaccine doses before departure; 1 dose is recommended for infant travelers (6 to <12 months) and does not count toward their primary immunization series. All US travelers (6 months to < 6 years) are at risk for being undervaccinated for measles because MMR is routinely given at 1 years and 4–6 years.

Methods

We developed a decision tree model to evaluate the clinical impact and cost per case averted of pretravel health encounters (PHE) that vaccinate MMR-eligible pediatric international travelers. We compared 2 strategies for infant (6 to < 12 months) and preschool-aged (1 to <6 years) travelers: (1) no PHE: travelers departed with baseline MMR vaccination status vs. (2) PHE: MMR-eligible travelers were offered vaccination. All simulated travelers experienced a destination-specific risk of measles exposure during travel (mean, 237exposures/10M travelers; range, 19–6,750 exposures/10M travelers); if exposed to measles, travelers were at risk of illness stratified by age and MMR vaccination status (range, 0.03–0.90). Costs include direct medical costs and lost work wages for guardians. Model outcomes included measles cases, costs, and cost per case averted. We varied inputs in sensitivity analyses.

Results

Compared with no PHE, PHE averted 451 measles cases at $985,000/case averted for infant travelers and 54 measles cases at $1.5 million/case averted for preschool-aged travelers (table, bottom). PHE can be cost-saving for travelers to regions with higher risk of measles exposure and if more MMR-eligible travelers are vaccinated at PHE (Figure 1). At a risk of exposure associated with European travel, PHE had better value when a measles importation led to a higher number of contacts or more US-acquired cases per importation (Figure 2).

Conclusion

PHE for pediatric travelers (6 months to <6 years) decreased the number of imported measles cases and saved costs, especially if targeted to travelers with higher-risk destinations, if more MMR-eligible travelers are vaccinated at PHE, or if outbreaks are larger.

Disclosures

All authors: No reported disclosures.

Model-Based Methods to Translate Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions Findings Into Policy Recommendations: Rationale and Protocol for a Modeling Core (ATN 161)

Background

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that approximately 60,000 US youth are living with HIV. US youth living with HIV (YLWH) have poorer outcomes compared with adults, including lower rates of diagnosis, engagement, retention, and virologic suppression. With Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions (ATN) support, new trials of youth-centered interventions to improve retention in care and medication adherence among YLWH are underway.

Objective

This study aimed to use a computer simulation model, the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC)-Adolescent Model, to evaluate selected ongoing and forthcoming ATN interventions to improve viral load suppression among YLWH and to define the benchmarks for uptake, effectiveness, durability of effect, and cost that will make these interventions clinically beneficial and cost-effective.

Methods

This protocol, ATN 161, establishes the ATN Modeling Core. The Modeling Core leverages extensive data—already collected by successfully completed National Institutes of Health–supported studies—to develop novel approaches for modeling critical components of HIV disease and care in YLWH. As new data emerge from ongoing ATN trials during the award period about the effectiveness of novel interventions, the CEPAC-Adolescent simulation model will serve as a flexible tool to project their long-term clinical impact and cost-effectiveness. The Modeling Core will derive model input parameters and create a model structure that reflects key aspects of HIV acquisition, progression, and treatment in YLWH. The ATN Modeling Core Steering Committee, with guidance from ATN leadership and scientific experts, will select and prioritize specific model-based analyses as well as provide feedback on derivation of model input parameters and model assumptions. Project-specific teams will help frame research questions for model-based analyses as well as provide feedback regarding project-specific inputs, results, sensitivity analyses, and policy conclusions.

Results

This project was funded as of September 2017.

Conclusions

The ATN Modeling Core will provide critical information to guide the scale-up of ATN interventions and the translation of ATN data into policy recommendations for YLWH in the United States.