Search

Background: We aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 mortality, and to explore whether an increased risk of non-COVID-19 mortality exists in the weeks following a COVID-19 vaccine dose., Methods: National registries of causes of death, COVID-19 vaccination, specialized health care and long-term care reimbursements were linked by a unique person identifier using data from 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2022. We used Cox regression with calendar time as underlying time scale to, firstly, estimate VE against COVID-19 mortality after primary and first booster vaccination, per month since vaccination and, secondly, estimate risk of non-COVID-19 mortality in the 5 or 8 weeks following a first, second or first booster dose, adjusting for birth year, sex, medical risk group and country of origin., Results: VE against COVID-19 mortality was > 90 % for all age groups two months after completion of the primary series. VE gradually decreased thereafter, to around 80 % at 7-8 months post-primary series for most groups, and around 60 % for elderly receiving a high level of long-term care and for people aged 90+ years. Following a first booster dose, the VE increased to > 85 % in all groups. The risk of non-COVID-19 mortality was lower or similar in the 5 or 8 weeks following a first dose compared to no vaccination, as well as following a second dose compared to one dose and a booster compared to two doses, for all age and long-term care groups., Conclusion: At the population level, COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of COVID-19 mortality and no increased risk of death from other causes was observed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vaccines against COVID-19 have proven effective in preventing COVID-19 hospitalisation. In this study, we aimed to quantify part of the public health impact of COVID-19 vaccination by estimating the number of averted hospitalisations. We present results from the beginning of the vaccination campaign ('entire period', January 6, 2021) and a subperiod starting at August 2, 2021 ('subperiod') when all adults had the opportunity to complete their primary series, both until August 30, 2022., Methods: Using calendar-time specific vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates and vaccine coverage (VC) by round (primary series, first booster and second booster) and the observed number of COVID-19 associated hospitalisations, we estimated the number of averted hospitalisations per age group for the two study periods. From January 25, 2022, when registration of the indication of hospitalisation started, hospitalisations not causally related to COVID-19 were excluded., Results: In the entire period, an estimated 98,170 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 96,123-99,928) hospitalisations were averted, of which 90,753 (95 % CI 88,790-92,531) were in the subperiod, representing 57.0 % and 67.9 % of all estimated hospital admissions. Estimated averted hospitalisations were lowest for 12-49-year-olds and highest for 70-79-year-olds. More admissions were averted in the Delta period (72.3 %) than in the Omicron period (63.4 %)., Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccination prevented a large number of hospitalisations. Although the counterfactual of having had no vaccinations while maintaining the same public health measures is unrealistic, these findings underline the public health importance of the vaccination campaign to policy makers and the public., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Senna van Iersel reports financial support was provided by Netherlands Ministry of Health Welfare and Sport., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neonatal invasive Group B Streptococcus (GBS) infection causes considerable disease burden in the Netherlands. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) prevents early-onset disease (EOD), but has no effect on late-onset disease (LOD). A potential maternal GBS vaccine could prevent both EOD and LOD by conferring immunity in neonates., Objective: Explore under which circumstances maternal vaccination against GBS would be cost-effective as an addition to, or replacement for the current risk factor-based IAP prevention strategy in the Netherlands., Methods: We assessed the maximum cost-effective price per dose of a trivalent (serotypes Ia, Ib, and III) and hexavalent (additional serotypes II, IV, and V) GBS vaccine in addition to, or as a replacement for IAP. To project the prevented costs and disease burden, a decision tree model was developed to reflect neonatal GBS disease and long-term health outcomes among a cohort based on 169,836 live births in the Netherlands in 2017., Results: Under base-case conditions, maternal immunization with a trivalent vaccine would gain 186 QALYs and prevent more than €3.1 million in health care costs when implemented in addition to IAP. Immunization implemented as a replacement for IAP would gain 88 QALYs compared to the current prevention strategy, prevent €1.5 million in health care costs, and avoid potentially ~ 30,000 IAP administrations. The base-case results correspond to a maximum price of €58 per dose (vaccine + administration costs; using a threshold of €20,000/QALY). Expanding the serotype coverage to a hexavalent vaccine would only have a limited additional impact on the cost-effectiveness in the Netherlands., Conclusions: A maternal GBS vaccine could be cost-effective when implemented in addition to the current risk factor-based IAP prevention strategy in the Netherlands. Discontinuation of IAP would save costs and prevent antibiotic use, however, is projected to lead to a lower health gain compared to vaccination in addition to IAP., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rubella containing vaccines (RCV) prevent rubella virus infection and subsequent congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). To update the evidence on immunogenicity, duration of protection, effectiveness and safety of RCV, we conducted a systematic literature review., Methods: We searched EMBASE and SCOPUS, using keywords for rubella vaccine in combination with immunogenicity (seroconversion and seropositivity), duration of protection, efficacy/effectiveness, and safety. Original research papers involving at least one dose of RCV (at any age), published between 1-1-2010 and 17-5-2019 were included. Where appropriate, meta-analyses were performed. Quality of included studies was assessed using GRADE methodology., Results: We included 36 papers (32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 observational studies) on immunogenicity (RA27/3 strain) in children and adolescent girls, 14 papers (5 RCTs and 9 observational studies) on duration of protection, one paper on vaccine effectiveness (VE) (BRDII strain), and 74 studies on safety, including three on safety in pregnancy. Meta-analysis of immunogenicity data showed 99% seroconversion (95% CI: 98-99%) after a single dose of RCV in children, independent of co-administration with other vaccines. Seroconversion after RCV1 below 9 months of age (BRDII strain, at 8 months) was 93% (95% CI: 92-95%). For duration of protection, the included studies showed a seropositivity of 88%-100% measured 1-20 years after one or two RCV doses. The single study on VE of BRDII strain, reported 100% VE after one and two doses. Among 34,332 individuals participating in the RCTs, 140 severe adverse events (SAEs) were reported as possibly related to RCV. Among the case reports on SAEs, the association with RCV was confirmed in one report (on fulminant encephalitis). Among 3,000 pregnant women who were inadvertently vaccinated, no SAEs were reported., Conclusions: One and two doses of RCV are highly immunogenic for a long period of time, effective in preventing rubella and CRS, and safe., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)