Abstract
Background In modeling studies that evaluate the effects of health programs, the risk of secondary outcomes attributable to infection can vary with underlying disease incidence. Consequently, the impact of interventions on secondary outcomes would not be proportional to incidence reduction. Here we use a case study on measles vaccine program to demonstrate how failure to capture this non-linear relationship can lead to over- or under-estimation.
Methods We used a published model of measles CFR that depends on incidence and vaccine coverage to illustrate the effects of: (1) assuming higher CFR in “no-vaccination” scenarios; (2) time-varying CFRs over the past; and (3) time-varying CFRs in future projections on measles impact estimation. We evaluated how different assumptions on vaccine coverage, measles incidence, and CFR levels in “no-vaccination” scenarios affect estimation of future deaths averted by measles vaccination.
Results Compared to constant CFRs, aligning both “vaccination” and “no-vaccination” scenarios with time variant measles CFR estimates led to larger differences in mortality in historical years and lower in future years.
Conclusions To assess consequences of interventions, impact estimates should consider the effect of “no-intervention” scenario assumptions on model parameters to project estimated impact for alternative scenarios according to intervention strategies and investment decisions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was carried out as part of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium (www.vaccineimpact.org), but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Consortium or its funders. The funders were given the opportunity to review this paper prior to publication, but the final decision on the content of the publication was taken by the authors. This work was supported, in whole or in part, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, via the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium [Grant Number INV-009125]. Under the grant conditions of the Foundation, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License has already been assigned to the Author Accepted Manuscript version that might arise from this submission.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
According to IRB definitions, this study is not human subjects research.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
