Daniel M Weinberger1, Joshua L Warren2, Claudia A Steiner3, Vivek Charu4, Cécile Viboud4, Virginia E Pitzer1. 1. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Disease. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Department of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Center for Delivery, Organization and Markets Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville. 4. Division of International Epidemiology and Population Studies, Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of respiratory infections among young children and can lead to severe disease among some infants. Infants at high risk for severe RSV infection receive monthly injections of a prophylactic monoclonal antibody during the RSV season based on national guidelines. We considered whether a reduced-dose schedule tailored to the local RSV season in the continental United States would provide adequate protection. METHODS: Hospitalization data for 1942 counties across 38 states from 1997 to 2009 were obtained from the State Inpatient Databases (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). We assessed the timing of RSV epidemics at the county and state levels using a 2-stage hierarchical Bayesian change point model. We used a simple summation approach to estimate the fraction of RSV cases that occur during the window of protection provided by initiating RSV prophylaxis during different weeks of the year. RESULTS: The timing of RSV epidemic onset varied significantly at the local level. Nevertheless, the national recommendations for initiation of prophylaxis provided near-optimal coverage of the RSV season in most of the continental United States. Reducing from 5 to 4 monthly doses (with a later initiation) provides near-optimal coverage (<5% decrease in coverage) in most settings. Earlier optimal dates for initiating 4 doses of prophylaxis were associated with being farther south and east, higher population density, and having a higher percentage of the population that was black or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: A 4-dose schedule of prophylactic injections timed with local RSV epidemics could provide protection comparable to 5 doses and could be considered as a way to improve the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis.
BACKGROUND:Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of respiratory infections among young children and can lead to severe disease among some infants. Infants at high risk for severe RSV infection receive monthly injections of a prophylactic monoclonal antibody during the RSV season based on national guidelines. We considered whether a reduced-dose schedule tailored to the local RSV season in the continental United States would provide adequate protection. METHODS: Hospitalization data for 1942 counties across 38 states from 1997 to 2009 were obtained from the State Inpatient Databases (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). We assessed the timing of RSV epidemics at the county and state levels using a 2-stage hierarchical Bayesian change point model. We used a simple summation approach to estimate the fraction of RSV cases that occur during the window of protection provided by initiating RSV prophylaxis during different weeks of the year. RESULTS: The timing of RSV epidemic onset varied significantly at the local level. Nevertheless, the national recommendations for initiation of prophylaxis provided near-optimal coverage of the RSV season in most of the continental United States. Reducing from 5 to 4 monthly doses (with a later initiation) provides near-optimal coverage (<5% decrease in coverage) in most settings. Earlier optimal dates for initiating 4 doses of prophylaxis were associated with being farther south and east, higher population density, and having a higher percentage of the population that was black or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: A 4-dose schedule of prophylactic injections timed with local RSV epidemics could provide protection comparable to 5 doses and could be considered as a way to improve the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis.
Authors: J L Lyon; G Stoddard; D Ferguson; M Caravati; A Kaczmarek; G Thompson; K Hegmann; C Hegmann Journal: Pediatrics Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Harish Nair; D James Nokes; Bradford D Gessner; Mukesh Dherani; Shabir A Madhi; Rosalyn J Singleton; Katherine L O'Brien; Anna Roca; Peter F Wright; Nigel Bruce; Aruna Chandran; Evropi Theodoratou; Agustinus Sutanto; Endang R Sedyaningsih; Mwanajuma Ngama; Patrick K Munywoki; Cissy Kartasasmita; Eric A F Simões; Igor Rudan; Martin W Weber; Harry Campbell Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel M Weinberger; Keith P Klugman; Claudia A Steiner; Lone Simonsen; Cécile Viboud Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Pascal M Lavoie; Alfonso Solimano; Richard Taylor; Eddie Kwan; Jennifer Claydon; Stuart E Turvey; Nico Marr Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Elsa Baumeister; Jazmin Duque; Teresa Varela; Rakhee Palekar; Paula Couto; Vilma Savy; Carlos Giovacchini; Amber K Haynes; Brian Rha; Carmen S Arriola; Susan I Gerber; Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Zhe Zheng; Joshua L Warren; Iris Artin; Virginia E Pitzer; Daniel M Weinberger Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Rachel E Baker; Ayesha S Mahmud; Caroline E Wagner; Wenchang Yang; Virginia E Pitzer; Cecile Viboud; Gabriel A Vecchi; C Jessica E Metcalf; Bryan T Grenfell Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 17.694