Alexis Pillsbury1, Helen Quinn2. 1. National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, The Children's Hospital at Westmead and the University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia . ; National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia . 2. National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, The Children's Hospital at Westmead and the University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia . ; Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Sydney, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia .
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Vaccine effectiveness analysis serves as a critical evaluation for immunization programmes and vaccination coverage. It also contributes to maintaining public confidence with the vaccine providers. This study estimated measles vaccine effectiveness at the population level using Australian national notifications data between 2006 and 2012. METHODS: Notification data were obtained from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. Vaccination status was classified according to whether a case had received zero, one or two doses of measles-containing vaccine. Cases aged less than 1 year and those with unknown vaccination status were excluded. All children with disease onset between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2012 who were born after 1996 were included. Cases were matched to controls extracted from the Australian Childhood Immunization Register according to date of birth and jurisdiction of residence. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated by conditional logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test data robustness. RESULTS: Vaccine effectiveness was estimated at 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.5-98.0%) for one dose and 99.7% (95% CI: 99.2-99.9%) for two doses of measles vaccine. For at least one dose, effectiveness was estimated at 98.7% (95% CI: 97.9-99.2%). Sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter the base estimates. DISCUSSION: Vaccine effectiveness estimates suggested that the measles vaccine was protective at the population level between 2006 and 2012. However, vaccination coverage gaps may have contributed to recent measles outbreaks and may represent a serious barrier for Australia to maintain measles elimination status.
OBJECTIVE: Vaccine effectiveness analysis serves as a critical evaluation for immunization programmes and vaccination coverage. It also contributes to maintaining public confidence with the vaccine providers. This study estimated measles vaccine effectiveness at the population level using Australian national notifications data between 2006 and 2012. METHODS: Notification data were obtained from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. Vaccination status was classified according to whether a case had received zero, one or two doses of measles-containing vaccine. Cases aged less than 1 year and those with unknown vaccination status were excluded. All children with disease onset between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2012 who were born after 1996 were included. Cases were matched to controls extracted from the Australian Childhood Immunization Register according to date of birth and jurisdiction of residence. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated by conditional logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test data robustness. RESULTS: Vaccine effectiveness was estimated at 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.5-98.0%) for one dose and 99.7% (95% CI: 99.2-99.9%) for two doses of measles vaccine. For at least one dose, effectiveness was estimated at 98.7% (95% CI: 97.9-99.2%). Sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter the base estimates. DISCUSSION: Vaccine effectiveness estimates suggested that the measles vaccine was protective at the population level between 2006 and 2012. However, vaccination coverage gaps may have contributed to recent measles outbreaks and may represent a serious barrier for Australia to maintain measles elimination status.
Authors: F M Turnbull; M A Burgess; P B McIntyre; S B Lambert; G L Gilbert; H F Gidding; R G Escott; H M Achat; B P Hull; H Wang; G A Sam; C L Mead Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2001-10-23 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Lorraine F Yeung; Perrianne Lurie; Gustavo Dayan; Eduard Eduardo; Phyllis H Britz; Susan B Redd; Mark J Papania; Jane F Seward Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: W A Orenstein; R H Bernier; T J Dondero; A R Hinman; J S Marks; K J Bart; B Sirotkin Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 1985 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Patrick T Wedlock; Elizabeth A Mitgang; Assaf P Oron; Brittany L Hagedorn; Jim Leonard; Shawn T Brown; Jennifer Bakal; Sheryl S Siegmund; Bruce Y Lee Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-03-23 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Stephanie L Hughes; Shelly Bolotin; Sumaiya Khan; Ye Li; Caitlin Johnson; Lindsay Friedman; Andrea C Tricco; Susan J M Hahné; Jane M Heffernan; Alya Dabbagh; David N Durrheim; Walter A Orenstein; William J Moss; Mark Jit; Natasha S Crowcroft Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 3.641