0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessment of the Clinical and Economic Impact of Different Immunization Protocols of Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella in Internationally Adopted Children

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The appropriate immunization of internationally adopted children (IAC) is currently under debate and different approaches have been suggested. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of different strategies of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) immunization in IAC in Italy. A decision analysis model was developed to compare three strategies: presumptive immunization, pre-vaccination serotesting and vaccination based on documentation of previous immunization. Main outcomes were the cost of strategy, number of protected IAC, and cost per child protected against MMRV. Moreover, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. The strategy currently recommended in Italy (immunize based on documentation) is less expensive. On the other hand, the pre-vaccination serotesting strategy against MMRV together, improves outcomes with a minimum cost increase, compared with the presumptive immunization strategy and compared with the comparator strategy. From a cost-effectiveness point of view, vaccination based on serotesting results in being the most advantageous strategy compared to presumptive vaccination. By applying a chemiluminescent immunoassay test, the serology strategy resulted to be clinically and economically advantageous. Similar results were obtained excluding children aged <1 year for both serology methods. In conclusion, based on our analyses, considering MMRV vaccine, serotesting strategy appears to be the preferred option in IAC.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measles antibody: reevaluation of protective titers.

          A school blood drive before a measles outbreak permitted correlation of preexposure measles antibody titers with clinical protection using the plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) test and an EIA. Of 9 donors with detectable preexposure PRN titer less than or equal to 120, 8 met the clinical criteria for measles (7 seroconfirmed) compared with none of 71 with preexposure PRN titers greater than 120 (P less than .0001). Seven of 11 donors with preexposure PRN titers of 216-874 had a greater than or equal to 4-fold rise in antibody titer (mean, 43-fold) compared with none of 7 with a preexposure PRN titer greater than or equal to 1052 (P less than .02). Of 37 noncases with preexposure PRN titer less than 1052, 26 (70%) reported one or more symptoms compared with 11 (31%) of 35 donors with preexposure PRN titers greater than or equal to 1052 (P less than .002). By EIA, no case had detectable preexposure antibody; the preexposure geometric mean titer of asymptomatic donors (220) was not significantly higher than that of symptomatic donors who did not meet the clinical criteria for measles (153) (P = .10). The study suggests that PRN titers less than or equal to 120 were not protective against measles disease and illness without rash due to measles may occur in persons with PRN titers above this level.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Immunization programs for infants, children, adolescents, and adults: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

            Evidence-based guidelines for immunization of infants, children, adolescents, and adults have been prepared by an Expert Panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). These updated guidelines replace the previous immunization guidelines published in 2002. These guidelines are prepared for health care professionals who care for either immunocompetent or immunocompromised people of all ages. Since 2002, the capacity to prevent more infectious diseases has increased markedly for several reasons: new vaccines have been licensed (human papillomavirus vaccine; live, attenuated influenza vaccine; meningococcal conjugate vaccine; rotavirus vaccine; tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis [Tdap] vaccine; and zoster vaccine), new combination vaccines have become available (measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine; tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis and inactivated polio vaccine; and tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis and inactivated polio/Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine), hepatitis A vaccines are now recommended universally for young children, influenza vaccines are recommended annually for all children aged 6 months through 18 years and for adults aged > or = 50 years, and a second dose of varicella vaccine has been added to the routine childhood and adolescent immunization schedule. Many of these changes have resulted in expansion of the adolescent and adult immunization schedules. In addition, increased emphasis has been placed on removing barriers to immunization, eliminating racial/ethnic disparities, addressing vaccine safety issues, financing recommended vaccines, and immunizing specific groups, including health care providers, immunocompromised people, pregnant women, international travelers, and internationally adopted children. This document includes 46 standards that, if followed, should lead to optimal disease prevention through vaccination in multiple population groups while maintaining high levels of safety.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Vaccinating Italian infants with a new multicomponent vaccine (Bexsero®) against meningococcal B disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis

              ABSTRACT The European Medicines Agency has approved a multicomponent serogroup B meningococcal vaccine (Bexsero®) for use in individuals of 2 months of age and older. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the societal and Italian National Health Service perspectives was performed in order to evaluate the impact of vaccinating Italian infants less than 1 y of age with Bexsero®, as opposed to non-vaccination. The analysis was carried out by means of Excel Version 2011 and the TreeAge Pro® software Version 2012. Two basal scenarios that differed in terms of disease incidence (official and estimated data to correct for underreporting) were considered. In the basal scenarios, we considered a primary vaccination cycle with 4 doses (at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) and 1 booster dose at the age of 11 y, the societal perspective and no cost for death. Sensitivity analyses were carried out in which crucial variables were changed over probable ranges. In Italy, on the basis of official data on disease incidence, vaccination with Bexsero® could prevent 82.97 cases and 5.61 deaths in each birth cohort, while these figures proved to be three times higher on considering the estimated incidence. The results of the CEA showed that the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per QALY was €109,762 in the basal scenario if official data on disease incidence are considered and €26,599 if estimated data are considered. The tornado diagram indicated that the most influential factor on ICER was the incidence of disease. The probability of sequelae, the cost of the vaccine and vaccine effectiveness also had an impact. Our results suggest that vaccinating infants in Italy with Bexsero® has the ability to significantly reduce meningococcal disease and, if the probable underestimation of disease incidence is considered, routine vaccination is advisable.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Vaccines (Basel)
                Vaccines (Basel)
                vaccines
                Vaccines
                MDPI
                2076-393X
                01 February 2020
                March 2020
                : 8
                : 1
                : 60
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Viale GB Morgagni 48, 50134 Florence, Italy; angela.bechini@ 123456unifi.it (A.B.); cecilia.alimenti@ 123456stud.unifi.it (C.M.A.); paolo.bonanni@ 123456unifi.it (P.B.); luisa.galli@ 123456unifi.it (L.G.); elena.chiappini@ 123456unifi.it (E.C.)
                [2 ]Meyer Children’s University Hospital, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence, Italy
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: sara.boccalini@ 123456unifi.it ; Tel.: +39-055-2751084
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9695-7549
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6013-8779
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7912-3366
                Article
                vaccines-08-00060
                10.3390/vaccines8010060
                7157696
                32024209
                3f7e17a1-5f1b-4aec-8e25-de3841a7d091
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 23 December 2019
                : 30 January 2020
                Categories
                Article

                internationally adopted children,vaccination,vaccine preventable diseases,children,adoptees,measles,mumps,rubella,varicella,infectious diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article