Vaccination against 2009 pandemic H1N1 in a population dynamical model of Vancouver, Canada: timing is everything

Division of Mathematical Modeling, University of British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, 655 West 12th Avenue, V5Z 4R4 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.32). 12/2011; 11:932. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-932
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Much remains unknown about the effect of timing and prioritization of vaccination against pandemic (pH1N1) 2009 virus on health outcomes. We adapted a city-level contact network model to study different campaigns on influenza morbidity and mortality.
We modeled different distribution strategies initiated between July and November 2009 using a compartmental epidemic model that includes age structure and transmission network dynamics. The model represents the Greater Vancouver Regional District, a major North American city and surrounding suburbs with a population of 2 million, and is parameterized using data from the British Columbia Ministry of Health, published studies, and expert opinion. Outcomes are expressed as the number of infections and deaths averted due to vaccination.
The model output was consistent with provincial surveillance data. Assuming a basic reproduction number = 1.4, an 8-week vaccination campaign initiated 2 weeks before the epidemic onset reduced morbidity and mortality by 79-91% and 80-87%, respectively, compared to no vaccination. Prioritizing children and parents for vaccination may have reduced transmission compared to actual practice, but the mortality benefit of this strategy appears highly sensitive to campaign timing. Modeling the actual late October start date resulted in modest reductions in morbidity and mortality (13-25% and 16-20%, respectively) with little variation by prioritization scheme.
Delays in vaccine production due to technological or logistical barriers may reduce potential benefits of vaccination for pandemic influenza, and these temporal effects can outweigh any additional theoretical benefits from population targeting. Careful modeling may provide decision makers with estimates of these effects before the epidemic peak to guide production goals and inform policy. Integration of real-time surveillance data with mathematical models holds the promise of enabling public health planners to optimize the community benefits from proposed interventions before the pandemic peak.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, Canada undertook the largest vaccination campaign in its history. The effort mobilized thousands of healthcare workers, cost many hundreds of millions of dollars, and vaccinated more than 40% of the population. Despite the large investment in mass vaccination internationally, little is known about the factors that drive the timing of vaccination uptake. Data from 2009 were used to investigate three potential determinants of vaccination uptake in Montreal, Canada. Poisson regression was used to analyze daily vaccination before and after a telephone intervention targeting households in 12 of the city's 29 health neighborhoods. The effect of an eligibility strategy based on risk groups, and of weather, on uptake was then estimated. Data were analyzed in 2013. Considerable variation in daily mass vaccination was observed, with the peak day (30,204 individuals) accounting for nearly five times the uptake of the slowest day (6298 individuals). No evidence was found that the telephone intervention led to a significant increase in vaccination. Daily vaccination was associated significantly with weather conditions, including mean temperature (relative risk [RR]=1.28, 95% CI=1.12, 1.46) and heavy precipitation (RR=0.63, 95% CI=0.45, 0.89), even after accounting for changes to eligibility, which also were associated with increased vaccination. Considerable temporal variation in uptake can occur during mass vaccination efforts. Targeted interventions to increase vaccination should be evaluated further, as a large intervention had no observable effect. Mass vaccination campaigns should, however, attempt to optimize priority sequences and account for weather when estimating vaccine demand.
    American journal of preventive medicine 11/2013; 45(5):622-8. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.06.016 · 4.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Managing emerging vaccine safety signals during an influenza pandemic is challenging. Federal regulators must balance vaccine risks against benefits while maintaining public confidence in the public health system. We developed a multi-criteria decision analysis model to explore regulatory decision-making in the context of emerging vaccine safety signals during a pandemic. We simulated vaccine safety surveillance system capabilities and used an age-structured compartmental model to develop potential pandemic scenarios. We used an expert-derived multi-attribute utility function to evaluate potential regulatory responses by combining four outcome measures into a single measure of interest: 1) expected vaccination benefit from averted influenza; 2) expected vaccination risk from vaccine-associated febrile seizures; 3) expected vaccination risk from vaccine-associated Guillain-Barre Syndrome; and 4) expected change in vaccine-seeking behavior in future influenza seasons. Over multiple scenarios, risk communication, with or without suspension of vaccination of high-risk persons, were the consistently preferred regulatory responses over no action or general suspension when safety signals were detected during a pandemic influenza. On average, the expert panel valued near-term vaccine-related outcomes relative to long-term projected outcomes by 3∶1. However, when decision-makers had minimal ability to influence near-term outcomes, the response was selected primarily by projected impacts on future vaccine-seeking behavior. The selected regulatory response depends on how quickly a vaccine safety signal is identified relative to the peak of the pandemic and the initiation of vaccination. Our analysis suggested two areas for future investment: efforts to improve the size and timeliness of the surveillance system and behavioral research to understand changes in vaccine-seeking behavior.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e115553. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115553 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Serfling-type periodic regression models have been widely used to identify and analyse epidemic of influenza. In these approaches, the baseline is traditionally determined using cleaned historical non-epidemic data. However, we found that the previous exclusion of epidemic seasons was empirical, since year-year variations in the seasonal pattern of activity had been ignored. Therefore, excluding fixed 'epidemic' months did not seem reasonable. We made some adjustments in the rule of epidemic-period removal to avoid potentially subjective definition of the start and end of epidemic periods. We fitted the baseline iteratively. Firstly, we established a Serfling regression model based on the actual observations without any removals. After that, instead of manually excluding a predefined 'epidemic' period (the traditional method), we excluded observations which exceeded a calculated boundary. We then established Serfling regression once more using the cleaned data and excluded observations which exceeded a calculated boundary. We repeated this process until the R2 value stopped to increase. In addition, the definitions of the onset of influenza epidemic were heterogeneous, which might make it impossible to accurately evaluate the performance of alternative approaches. We then used this modified model to detect the peak timing of influenza instead of the onset of epidemic and compared this model with traditional Serfling models using observed weekly case counts of influenza-like illness (ILIs), in terms of sensitivity, specificity and lead time. A better performance was observed. In summary, we provide an adjusted Serfling model which may have improved performance over traditional models in early warning at arrival of peak timing of influenza.
    PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0119923. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0119923 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 26, 2014