Haedi DeAngelis1, Samuel V Scarpino2, Meagan C Fitzpatrick3, Alison P Galvani4, Benjamin M Althouse5. 1. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. 2. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 3. Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut4Yale Program in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces2Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Current acellular pertussis vaccines may not protect against transmission of Bordetella pertussis. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a priming dose of whole-cell pertussis (wP) vaccine is cost-effective at reducing pertussis infection in infants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Mathematical model of pertussis transmission fit to US incidence data in a simulation of the US population. In this simulation study conducted from June 2014 to May 2015, the population was divided into 9 age groups corresponding to the current pertussis vaccination schedule and fit to 2012 pertussis incidence. INTERVENTIONS: Inclusion of a priming dose of wP vaccine into the current acellular pertussis vaccination schedule. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reductions in symptomatic pertussis incidence by age group, increases in wP vaccine-related adverse effects, and quality-adjusted life-years owing to changing vaccine schedule. RESULTS: Switching to a wP-priming vaccination strategy could reduce whooping cough incidence by up to 95% (95% CI, 91-98), including 96% (95% CI, 92-98) fewer infections in neonates. Although there may be an increase in the number of vaccine adverse effects, we nonetheless estimate a 95% reduction in quality-adjusted life-years lost with a switch to the combined strategy and a cost reduction of 94% (95% CI, 91-97), saving more than $142 million annually. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our results suggest that an alternative vaccination schedule including 1 dose of wP vaccine may be highly cost-effective and ethically preferred until next-generation pertussis vaccines become available.
IMPORTANCE: Current acellular pertussis vaccines may not protect against transmission of Bordetella pertussis. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a priming dose of whole-cell pertussis (wP) vaccine is cost-effective at reducing pertussis infection in infants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Mathematical model of pertussis transmission fit to US incidence data in a simulation of the US population. In this simulation study conducted from June 2014 to May 2015, the population was divided into 9 age groups corresponding to the current pertussis vaccination schedule and fit to 2012 pertussis incidence. INTERVENTIONS: Inclusion of a priming dose of wP vaccine into the current acellular pertussis vaccination schedule. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reductions in symptomatic pertussis incidence by age group, increases in wP vaccine-related adverse effects, and quality-adjusted life-years owing to changing vaccine schedule. RESULTS: Switching to a wP-priming vaccination strategy could reduce whooping cough incidence by up to 95% (95% CI, 91-98), including 96% (95% CI, 92-98) fewer infections in neonates. Although there may be an increase in the number of vaccine adverse effects, we nonetheless estimate a 95% reduction in quality-adjusted life-years lost with a switch to the combined strategy and a cost reduction of 94% (95% CI, 91-97), saving more than $142 million annually. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our results suggest that an alternative vaccination schedule including 1 dose of wP vaccine may be highly cost-effective and ethically preferred until next-generation pertussis vaccines become available.
Authors: Grace M Lee; Trudy V Murphy; Susan Lett; Margaret M Cortese; Katrina Kretsinger; Stephanie Schauer; Tracy A Lieu Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Gayatri Amirthalingam; Nick Andrews; Helen Campbell; Sonia Ribeiro; Edna Kara; Katherine Donegan; Norman K Fry; Elizabeth Miller; Mary Ramsay Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ricardo da Silva Antunes; Mariana Babor; Chelsea Carpenter; Natalie Khalil; Mario Cortese; Alexander J Mentzer; Grégory Seumois; Christopher D Petro; Lisa A Purcell; Pandurangan Vijayanand; Shane Crotty; Bali Pulendran; Bjoern Peters; Alessandro Sette Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Kevin L Schwartz; Jeffrey C Kwong; Shelley L Deeks; Michael A Campitelli; Frances B Jamieson; Alex Marchand-Austin; Therese A Stukel; Laura Rosella; Nick Daneman; Shelly Bolotin; Steven J Drews; Heather Rilkoff; Natasha S Crowcroft Journal: CMAJ Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Saskia van der Lee; Lotte H Hendrikx; Elisabeth A M Sanders; Guy A M Berbers; Anne-Marie Buisman Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 7.561