Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:DARM exercise]]
[[Category:DARM exercise]]
{{assessment|moderator=Teemu R|stub=Yes}}
{{assessment|moderator=Teemu R|stub=Yes}}
This assessment is about the total health effects the 2009 swine flu pandemic. It utilizes data from the Infectious disease registry (TTR) maintained by THL, the National narcolepsy task force report from 31.1.2011 and WHO. The current model is a simplification with no time dimension.


==Scope==
==Scope==
Line 20: Line 22:
*[[ERF of H1N1 vaccination on Narcolepsy]]
*[[ERF of H1N1 vaccination on Narcolepsy]]
*[[A(H1N1)v immunity in the Finnish population]]
*[[A(H1N1)v immunity in the Finnish population]]
**P(immune) = 1 - P(not vaccinated) * P(no base immunity)
*[[Population of Finland]]
*[[Population of Finland]]
*[[Disability weights]]
*[[Disability weights]]
**DALY weight of narcolepsy equals roughly that of epilepsy (0.065)
**DALY weight of having swine flu assumed ~0.5
*Life expectancy by age groups in Finland<ref>[http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortality_life_tables/en/ WHO life table estimates for 2008, Finland]</ref>
*Life expectancy by age groups in Finland<ref>[http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortality_life_tables/en/ WHO life table estimates for 2008, Finland]</ref>
*Probability of catching swine flu given subject is not immune
*Probability of catching swine flu given subject is not immune
**Estimated from data available (population, total immunity, number of cases) by fitting the number of cases to a poisson distribution and calculating probability from the mean estimate by dividing by the non-immune population
*Fraction of all cases represented by lab confirmed cases (which we have data on)
*Fraction of all cases represented by lab confirmed cases (which we have data on)
**Estimated as beta-distributed with mean of 0.2 and some sd
*Probability of death due to swine flu given a subject has swine flu and belongs to a risk group
*Probability of death due to swine flu given a subject has swine flu and belongs to a risk group
**Estimated from data available
**Assumed all deaths will be lab confirmed cases
**Assumed that all deaths belonged to a risk group (some base illness)
*Fraction of population belonging to a risk group
*Fraction of population belonging to a risk group
**Arbitrary values; trying to account for kids of age <1 and old folks with heart conditions etc.
*Length of swine flu
*Length of swine flu
**Assumed to be flat 5 days (mildly incapacitated for this duration)
*[[Narcolepsy in Finland]]
*[[Narcolepsy in Finland]]
*[[AH1N1 cases in Finland]]
*[[AH1N1 cases in Finland]]

Revision as of 08:11, 7 April 2011



This assessment is about the total health effects the 2009 swine flu pandemic. It utilizes data from the Infectious disease registry (TTR) maintained by THL, the National narcolepsy task force report from 31.1.2011 and WHO. The current model is a simplification with no time dimension.

Scope

  • What was the overall health impact of the H1N1 vaccination in Finland in 2009-2010?
  • Given current knowledge, which was the better decision between vaccinating as happened versus vaccinating no-one?

Definition

Causal diagram.
Decisions
  • Vaccination decision
    • Vaccinate everyone (observed vaccination coverage)
    • Vaccinate no-one (0 vaccination coverage)
Variables
  • H1N1 vaccination coverage in Finland
  • ERF of H1N1 vaccination on Narcolepsy
  • A(H1N1)v immunity in the Finnish population
    • P(immune) = 1 - P(not vaccinated) * P(no base immunity)
  • Population of Finland
  • Disability weights
    • DALY weight of narcolepsy equals roughly that of epilepsy (0.065)
    • DALY weight of having swine flu assumed ~0.5
  • Life expectancy by age groups in Finland[1]
  • Probability of catching swine flu given subject is not immune
    • Estimated from data available (population, total immunity, number of cases) by fitting the number of cases to a poisson distribution and calculating probability from the mean estimate by dividing by the non-immune population
  • Fraction of all cases represented by lab confirmed cases (which we have data on)
    • Estimated as beta-distributed with mean of 0.2 and some sd
  • Probability of death due to swine flu given a subject has swine flu and belongs to a risk group
    • Estimated from data available
    • Assumed all deaths will be lab confirmed cases
    • Assumed that all deaths belonged to a risk group (some base illness)
  • Fraction of population belonging to a risk group
    • Arbitrary values; trying to account for kids of age <1 and old folks with heart conditions etc.
  • Length of swine flu
    • Assumed to be flat 5 days (mildly incapacitated for this duration)
  • Narcolepsy in Finland
  • AH1N1 cases in Finland
Indicators
  • DALYs from narcolepsy caused by vaccination
  • DALYs from having swine flu (~staying at home for 5 days)
  • DALYs from deaths caused by swine flu


Result

{{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en4926}}


Results

Distributions of the results for the different scenarios/decisions.
  • From initial results it would appear like swine flu is more significant than narcolepsy in terms of DALYs.
    • Vaccinating as planned would result in approximately 1850 DALYs due to swine flu and narcolepsy combined.
    • Vaccinating no-one would result in approximately 4400 DALYs due to swine flu.
  • Probability of swine flu variable is revealed by both the sensitivity- and Value of information-analyses to have the most impact on the outcome.
    • The VOI analysis also reveals that further knowledge about the uncertain variables in the model is only worth up to ~80 DALYs, when considering the decision by age group, and less than 1 DALY when considering the decision as on/off as defined in the decision variable above. Which is only a small fraction of the total DALYs.
  • Statements: Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high.
    • Resolution: Not accepted. Pandemrix is still an effective and safe vaccine. However, due to precautionary reasons, other alternatives should be used when available, because the occurrence of narcolepsy is not understood. R↻

Conclusions

Given current knowledge, the decision to vaccinate the whole population was better than not vaccinating anyone. Results of the Value of information analysis suggest that further knowledge about the uncertain variables considered would not have changed the decision. The total impact of the swine flu pandemic and related narcolepsy cases in terms of DALYs is a lot smaller than those of radon or moisture damage for instance.

R code

  • Basic model
    • Uncertainties of ERF of vaccine on narcolepsy, fraction of all cases represented by lab confirmed cases and probability of catching swine flu are implemented.

+ Show code

See also

References