Risk-based Vaccines and the Need for Risk-based Subnational Vaccination Strategies for Introduction.

BACKGROUND: Most vaccines in the Expanded Program on Immunization are universal childhood vaccines (eg, measles and rotavirus vaccines). Other vaccines such as typhoid conjugate (TCV) and Japanese encephalitis vaccines are risk based and only used in countries where populations are at risk of these diseases. However, strategies to introduce risk-based vaccines are becoming complex due to increasing intracountry variability in disease incidence. There is a need to assess whether subnational vaccine strategies are appropriate. CRITERIA, CHALLENGES, AND BENEFITS: Subnational strategies consider intracountry heterogeneous risk and prioritize vaccination only in those areas that are at risk; there is no intent to introduce the vaccine nationally. The following variables should be considered to determine appropriateness of subnational strategies: disease burden, outbreak potential, treatment availability and costs, cost-effectiveness, and availability of other preventive interventions. We propose criteria for each variable and use a hypothetical country considering TCV introduction to show how criteria are applied to determine if a subnational strategy is appropriate. Challenges include granularity of disease-burden data, political challenges of vaccinating only a portion of a population, and potentially higher costs of introduction. Benefits include targeted reduction of disease burden, increased equity for marginalized populations, and progress on development goals. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of perfect information at the national level, adopting a subnational vaccine strategy can provide country decision makers with an alternative to national vaccine introduction. Given the changing nature of communicable disease burden, subnational vaccination may be a tool to effectively avert mortality and morbidity while maximizing the use of available health and financial resources.

Standardizing surveillance of pneumococcal disease.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance for invasive pneumococcal disease has been conducted using a variety of case ascertainment methods and diagnostic tools. Interstudy differences in observed rates of invasive pneumococcal disease could reflect variations in surveillance methods or true epidemiological differences in disease incidence. To facilitate comparisons of surveillance data among countries, investigators of Pneumococcal Vaccines Accelerated Development and Introduction Plan-sponsored projects have developed standard case definitions and data reporting methods. METHODS: Investigators developed case definitions for meningitis, pneumonia, and very severe disease using existing World Health Organization guidelines and clinical definitions from Africa and Asia. Standardized case definitions were used to standardize reporting of aggregated results. Univariate analyses were conducted to compare results among countries and to identify factors contributing to detection of Streptococcus pneumoniae. RESULTS: Surveillance sites varied with regard to the age groups targeted, disease syndromes monitored, specimens collected, and laboratory methods employed. The proportion of specimens positive for pneumococcus was greater for cerebrospinal fluid specimens (1.2%-19.4%) than for blood specimens (0.1%-1.4%) in all countries (range, 1.3-38-fold greater). The distribution of disease syndromes and pneumonia severity captured by surveillance differed among countries. The proportion of disease cases with pneumococcus detected varied by syndrome (meningitis, 1.4%-10.8%; pneumonia, 0.2%-1.3%; other, 0.2%-1.2%) and illness severity (nonsevere pneumonia, 0%-2.7%; severe pneumonia, 0.2%-1.2%), although these variations were not consistent for all sites. Antigen testing and polymerase chain reaction increased the proportion of cerebrospinal fluid specimens with pneumococcus identified by 1.3-5.5-fold, compared with culture alone. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized case definitions and data reporting enhanced our understanding of pneumococcal epidemiology and enabled us to assess the contributions of specimen type, disease syndrome, pneumonia severity, and diagnostic tools to rate of pneumococcal detection. Broader standardization and more-detailed data reporting would further improve interpretation of surveillance results.