Qiru Su1, Zhilan Feng2, Lixin Hao3, Chao Ma3, José E Hagan4, Gavin B Grant5, Ning Wen3, Chunxiang Fan3, Hong Yang3, Lance E Rodewald6, Huaqing Wang7, John W Glasser8. 1. National Immunization Program, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China; Shenzhen Institute of Pediatrics, Shenzhen Children's Hospital, Guangdong, China. 2. Department of Mathematics, College of Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; Division of Mathematical Sciences, National Science Foundation, Alexandria, VA, USA. 3. National Immunization Program, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China. 4. Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Expanded Programme on Immunization, World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific, Manila, Philippines. 5. Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. National Immunization Program, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China; Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Office of the World Health Organization Representative in China, Beijing, China. 7. National Immunization Program, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China. Electronic address: hqwang@vip.sina.com. 8. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A rubella vaccine was licensed in China in 1993 and added to the Expanded Programme on Immunization in 2008, but a national cross-sectional serological survey during 2014 indicates that many adolescents remain susceptible. Maternal infections during the first trimester often cause miscarriages, stillbirths, and, among livebirths, congenital rubella syndrome. We aimed to evaluate possible supplemental immunisation activities (SIAs) to accelerate elimination of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome. METHODS: We analysed residual samples from the national serological survey done in 2014, data from monthly rubella surveillance reports from 2005 and 2016, and additional publications through a systematic review. Using an age-structured population model with provincial strata, we calculated the reproduction numbers and evaluated the gradient of the metapopulation effective reproduction number with respect to potential supplemental immunisation rates. We corroborated these analytical results and estimated times-to-elimination by simulating SIAs among adolescents (ages 10-19 years) and young adults (ages 20-29 years) using a model with regional strata. We estimated the incidence of rubella and burden of congenital rubella syndrome by simulating transmission in a relatively small population lacking only spatial structure. FINDINGS: By 2014, childhood immunisation had reduced rubella's reproduction number from 7·6 to 1·2 and SIAs among adolescents were the optimal elimination strategy. We found that less than 10% of rubella infections were reported; that although some women with symptomatic first-trimester infections might have elected to terminate their pregnancies, 700 children could have been born with congenital rubella syndrome during 2014; and that timely SIAs would avert outbreaks that, as susceptible adolescents reached reproductive age, could greatly increase the burden of this syndrome. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that SIAs among adolescents would most effectively reduce congenital rubella syndrome as well as eliminate rubella, owing both to fewer infections in the immunised population and absence of infections that those immunised would otherwise have caused. Metapopulation models with realistic mixing are uniquely capable of assessing such indirect effects. FUNDING: WHO and National Science Foundation.
BACKGROUND: A rubella vaccine was licensed in China in 1993 and added to the Expanded Programme on Immunization in 2008, but a national cross-sectional serological survey during 2014 indicates that many adolescents remain susceptible. Maternal infections during the first trimester often cause miscarriages, stillbirths, and, among livebirths, congenital rubella syndrome. We aimed to evaluate possible supplemental immunisation activities (SIAs) to accelerate elimination of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome. METHODS: We analysed residual samples from the national serological survey done in 2014, data from monthly rubella surveillance reports from 2005 and 2016, and additional publications through a systematic review. Using an age-structured population model with provincial strata, we calculated the reproduction numbers and evaluated the gradient of the metapopulation effective reproduction number with respect to potential supplemental immunisation rates. We corroborated these analytical results and estimated times-to-elimination by simulating SIAs among adolescents (ages 10-19 years) and young adults (ages 20-29 years) using a model with regional strata. We estimated the incidence of rubella and burden of congenital rubella syndrome by simulating transmission in a relatively small population lacking only spatial structure. FINDINGS: By 2014, childhood immunisation had reduced rubella's reproduction number from 7·6 to 1·2 and SIAs among adolescents were the optimal elimination strategy. We found that less than 10% of rubella infections were reported; that although some women with symptomatic first-trimester infections might have elected to terminate their pregnancies, 700 children could have been born with congenital rubella syndrome during 2014; and that timely SIAs would avert outbreaks that, as susceptible adolescents reached reproductive age, could greatly increase the burden of this syndrome. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that SIAs among adolescents would most effectively reduce congenital rubella syndrome as well as eliminate rubella, owing both to fewer infections in the immunised population and absence of infections that those immunised would otherwise have caused. Metapopulation models with realistic mixing are uniquely capable of assessing such indirect effects. FUNDING: WHO and National Science Foundation.
Authors: Lixin Hao; John W Glasser; Qiru Su; Chao Ma; Zhilan Feng; Zundong Yin; James L Goodson; Ning Wen; Chunxiang Fan; Hong Yang; Lance E Rodewald; Zijian Feng; Huaqing Wang Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: John Glasser; Denis Taneri; Zhilan Feng; Jen-Hsiang Chuang; Peet Tüll; William Thompson; Mary Mason McCauley; James Alexander Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jonathan M Read; Justin Lessler; Steven Riley; Shuying Wang; Li Jiu Tan; Kin On Kwok; Yi Guan; Chao Qiang Jiang; Derek A T Cummings Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Emilia Vynnycky; Elisabeth J Adams; Felicity T Cutts; Susan E Reef; Ann Marie Navar; Emily Simons; Lay-Myint Yoshida; David W J Brown; Charlotte Jackson; Peter M Strebel; Alya J Dabbagh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joël Mossong; Niel Hens; Mark Jit; Philippe Beutels; Kari Auranen; Rafael Mikolajczyk; Marco Massari; Stefania Salmaso; Gianpaolo Scalia Tomba; Jacco Wallinga; Janneke Heijne; Malgorzata Sadkowska-Todys; Magdalena Rosinska; W John Edmunds Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 11.069