19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The UK immunisation schedule: changes to vaccine policy and practice in 2013/14

      review-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.

          Summary

          Vaccination programmes are implemented either as new vaccines become available or evidence about them accumulates, or in response to specific situations. In the United Kingdom, development and implementation of the national immunisation programme is centrally coordinated and funded by the Department of Health on behalf of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A number of significant changes were made to the UK immunisation schedule for 2013/2014. Three new vaccines were introduced: intranasal influenza and oral rotavirus for children and subcutaneous shingles for older adults. To ensure protection against meningococcal C infection into adulthood, there has been a change to the schedule for meningitis C vaccination. The temporary pertussis vaccination programme for pregnant women, set up in response to an increase in the number of cases of pertussis particularly among young babies, has been extended until further notice. Furthermore, in response to large outbreaks of measles in south Wales and other parts of the UK, a national measles, mumps and rubella catch-up campaign specifically targeted at unvaccinated children aged 10–16 years was launched to ensure that all children and young people have received two doses of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. This review describes the rationale behind these policy changes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

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

          Live attenuated versus inactivated influenza vaccine in infants and young children.

          Universal vaccination of children 6 to 59 months of age with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine has recently been recommended by U.S. advisory bodies. To evaluate alternative vaccine approaches, we compared the safety and efficacy of intranasally administered live attenuated influenza vaccine with those of inactivated vaccine in infants and young children. Children 6 to 59 months of age, without a recent episode of wheezing illness or severe asthma, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cold-adapted trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (a refrigeration-stable formulation of live attenuated intranasally administered influenza vaccine) or trivalent inactivated vaccine in a double-blind manner. Influenza-like illness was monitored with cultures throughout the 2004-2005 influenza season. Safety data were available for 8352 children, and 7852 children completed the study according to the protocol. There were 54.9% fewer cases of cultured-confirmed influenza in the group that received live attenuated vaccine than in the group that received inactivated vaccine (153 vs. 338 cases, P<0.001). The superior efficacy of live attenuated vaccine, as compared with inactivated vaccine, was observed for both antigenically well-matched and drifted viruses. Among previously unvaccinated children, wheezing within 42 days after the administration of dose 1 was more common with live attenuated vaccine than with inactivated vaccine, primarily among children 6 to 11 months of age; in this age group, 12 more episodes of wheezing were noted within 42 days after receipt of dose 1 among recipients of live attenuated vaccine (3.8%) than among recipients of inactivated vaccine (2.1%, P=0.076). Rates of hospitalization for any cause during the 180 days after vaccination were higher among the recipients of live attenuated vaccine who were 6 to 11 months of age (6.1%) than among the recipients of inactivated vaccine in this age group (2.6%, P=0.002). Among young children, live attenuated vaccine had significantly better efficacy than inactivated vaccine. An evaluation of the risks and benefits indicates that live attenuated vaccine should be a highly effective, safe vaccine for children 12 to 59 months of age who do not have a history of asthma or wheezing. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00128167 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Estimating the cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster in England and Wales.

            A live-attenuated vaccine against herpes zoster (HZ) has been approved for use, on the basis of a large-scale clinical trial that suggests that the vaccine is safe and efficacious. This study uses a Markov cohort model to estimate whether routine vaccination of the elderly (60+) would be cost-effective, when compared with other uses of health care resources. Vaccine efficacy parameters are estimated by fitting a model to clinical trial data. Estimates of QALY losses due to acute HZ and post-herpetic neuralgia were derived by fitting models to data on the duration of pain by severity and the QoL detriment associated with different severity categories, as reported in a number of different studies. Other parameters (such as cost and incidence estimates) were based on the literature, or UK data sources. The results suggest that vaccination of 65 year olds is likely to be cost-effective (base-case ICER=pound20,400 per QALY gained). If the vaccine does offer additional protection against either the severity of disease or the likelihood of developing PHN (as suggested by the clinical trial), then vaccination of all elderly age groups is highly likely to be deemed cost-effective. Vaccination at either 65 or 70 years (depending on assumptions of the vaccine action) is most cost-effective. Including a booster dose at a later age is unlikely to be cost-effective.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Vaccination against Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia.

              Herpes zoster (HZ) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) cause significant morbidity in older adults. The incidence and severity of HZ and PHN increase with age in association with an age-related decline in varicella-zoster virus (VZV)-specific cell-mediated immunity (VZV-CMI). VZV vaccines can boost VZV-CMI. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that VZV vaccination would protect older adults against HZ and PHN. We enrolled 38,546 adults > or =60 years of age in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of an investigational HZ vaccine and actively followed subjects for the development of HZ. The primary end point was the burden of illness due to HZ (HZ BOI), a composite measure of the incidence, severity, and duration of pain and discomfort caused by HZ. The secondary end point was the incidence of PHN. Subject retention was >95%. HZ vaccine reduced the HZ BOI by 61.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.1%-69.1%; P<.001) and reduced the incidence of PHN by 66.5% (95% CI, 47.5%-79.2%; P<.001). The incidence of HZ was also reduced by 51.3% (95% CI, 44.2%-57.6%; P<.001). HZ vaccine was well tolerated; injection site reactions were generally mild. HZ vaccine neither caused nor induced HZ. The Shingles Prevention Study demonstrated that HZ vaccine significantly reduced the morbidity due to HZ and PHN in older adults.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JRSM Open
                JRSM Open
                SHR
                spshr
                JRSM Open
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                2054-2704
                11 May 2015
                April 2015
                : 6
                : 4
                : 2054270415577762
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK
                [2 ]WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Education and Training, Imperial College, London, UK
                Author notes
                [*]Christina J Atchison. Email: christina.atchison11@ 123456imperial.ac.uk
                Article
                10.1177_2054270415577762
                10.1177/2054270415577762
                4429042
                25973215
                91a21151-4b33-4f61-9e50-e4b7baae970e
                © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page( http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).

                History
                Categories
                Clinical Review

                immunisation,vaccination,rotavirus,influenza,shingles,meningococcal c,pertussis,measles,mumps,rubella

                Comments

                Comment on this article