Impact of COVID-19-related disruptions to measles, meningococcal A, and yellow fever vaccination in 10 countries

  1. Katy A M Gaythorpe
  2. Kaja Abbas
  3. John Huber
  4. Andromachi Karachaliou
  5. Niket Thakkar
  6. Kim Woodruff
  7. Xiang Li
  8. Susy Echeverria-Londono
  9. Matthew Ferrari
  10. Michael Jackson
  11. Kevin McCarthy
  12. Alex T Perkins
  13. Caroline Trotter
  14. Mark Jit  Is a corresponding author
  1. Imperial College London, Switzerland
  2. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
  3. University of Notre Dame, France
  4. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  5. Institute for Disease Modelling, United States
  6. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  7. Pennsylvania State University, United States
  8. Kaiser Permanente Washington,, United States
  9. University of Notre Dame, United States

Abstract

Background: Childhood immunisation services have been disrupted by COVID-19. WHO recommends considering outbreak risk using epidemiological criteria when deciding whether to conduct preventive vaccination campaigns during the pandemic.

Methods: We used 2-3 models per infection to estimate the health impact of 50% reduced routine vaccination coverage and delaying campaign vaccination for measles, meningococcal A and yellow fever vaccination in 3-6 high burden countries per infection.

Results: Reduced routine coverage in 2020 without catch-up vaccination may increase measles and yellow fever disease burden in the modelled countries. Delaying planned campaigns may lead to measles outbreaks and increases in yellow fever burden in some countries. For meningococcal A vaccination, short term disruptions in 2020 are unlikely to have a significant impact.

Conclusion: The impact of COVID-19-related disruption to vaccination programs varies between infections and countries.

Funding: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

Data availability

All code, data inputs and outputs used to generate the results in the manuscript (apart from projections about vaccine coverage beyond 2020 which are commercially confidential property of Gavi) are available at: https://github.com/vimc/vpd-covid-phase-I.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Katy A M Gaythorpe

    MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3734-9081
  2. Kaja Abbas

    Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. John Huber

    University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, France
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5245-5187
  4. Andromachi Karachaliou

    Department of Vetinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Niket Thakkar

    Institute for Disease Modelling, Institute for Disease Modelling, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Niket Thakkar, KM is an employee of the Institute for Disease Modeling at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which funded the research..
  6. Kim Woodruff

    MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Xiang Li

    MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Susy Echeverria-Londono

    MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Matthew Ferrari

    Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Michael Jackson

    Kaiser Permanente Washington,, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Michael Jackson, KM is an employee of the Institute for Disease Modeling at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which funded the research..
  11. Kevin McCarthy

    Institute for Disease Modelling, Institute for Disease Modelling, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Alex T Perkins

    University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7518-4014
  13. Caroline Trotter

    Department of Vetinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    Caroline Trotter, CT declares a consultancy fee from GSK in 2018 (unrelated to the submitted work)..
  14. Mark Jit

    Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    Mark.Jit@lshtm.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    Mark Jit, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6658-8255

Funding

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1157270 and INV-016832)

  • Katy A M Gaythorpe
  • Kaja Abbas
  • John Huber
  • Andromachi Karachaliou
  • Niket Thakkar
  • Kim Woodruff
  • Xiang Li
  • Susy Echeverria-Londono
  • Matthew Ferrari
  • Michael Jackson
  • Kevin McCarthy
  • Alex T Perkins
  • Caroline Trotter
  • Mark Jit

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Talía Malagón, McGill University, Canada

Version history

  1. Received: January 29, 2021
  2. Accepted: June 23, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 24, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: June 25, 2021 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: July 7, 2021 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: July 20, 2021 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2021, Gaythorpe et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,760
    views
  • 369
    downloads
  • 51
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Katy A M Gaythorpe
  2. Kaja Abbas
  3. John Huber
  4. Andromachi Karachaliou
  5. Niket Thakkar
  6. Kim Woodruff
  7. Xiang Li
  8. Susy Echeverria-Londono
  9. Matthew Ferrari
  10. Michael Jackson
  11. Kevin McCarthy
  12. Alex T Perkins
  13. Caroline Trotter
  14. Mark Jit
(2021)
Impact of COVID-19-related disruptions to measles, meningococcal A, and yellow fever vaccination in 10 countries
eLife 10:e67023.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67023

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67023

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Caroline Krag, Maria Saur Svane ... Tinne Laurberg
    Research Article

    Background:

    Comorbidity with type 2 diabetes (T2D) results in worsening of cancer-specific and overall prognosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. The treatment of CRC per se may be diabetogenic. We assessed the impact of different types of surgical cancer resections and oncological treatment on risk of T2D development in CRC patients.

    Methods:

    We developed a population-based cohort study including all Danish CRC patients, who had undergone CRC surgery between 2001 and 2018. Using nationwide register data, we identified and followed patients from date of surgery and until new onset of T2D, death, or end of follow-up.

    Results:

    In total, 46,373 CRC patients were included and divided into six groups according to type of surgical resection: 10,566 Right-No-Chemo (23%), 4645 Right-Chemo (10%), 10,151 Left-No-Chemo (22%), 5257 Left-Chemo (11%), 9618 Rectal-No-Chemo (21%), and 6136 Rectal-Chemo (13%). During 245,466 person-years of follow-up, 2556 patients developed T2D. The incidence rate (IR) of T2D was highest in the Left-Chemo group 11.3 (95% CI: 10.4–12.2) per 1000 person-years and lowest in the Rectal-No-Chemo group 9.6 (95% CI: 8.8–10.4). Between-group unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of developing T2D was similar and non-significant. In the adjusted analysis, Rectal-No-Chemo was associated with lower T2D risk (HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75–0.98]) compared to Right-No-Chemo.

    For all six groups, an increased level of body mass index (BMI) resulted in a nearly twofold increased risk of developing T2D.

    Conclusions:

    This study suggests that postoperative T2D screening should be prioritised in CRC survivors with overweight/obesity regardless of type of CRC treatment applied.

    Funding:

    The Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF17SA0031406); TrygFonden (101390; 20045; 125132).

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Xiaoxin Yu, Roger S Zoh ... David B Allison
    Review Article

    We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.