DARM DA study exercise Group 1

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search



For some guidance see the discussion page: D↷

Background

The 2009 flu pandemic was an outbreak of a new strain of H1N1 influenza virus, usually referred to as "swine flu". First described in April 2009, the influenza A(H1N1)v virus was a new virus subtype of influenza affecting humans, which contains segments of genes from pig, bird and human influenza viruses in a combination that had never been observed before anywhere in the world. A(H1N1)v virus is the result of a combination of two swine influenza viruses that contained genes of avian and human origin (ECDPC 2011). Unlike most strains of influenza, H1N1 does not disproportionately infect adults older than 60 years; this was an unusual and characteristic feature of the H1N1 pandemic (Writing Committee of the WHO 2010).

The outbreak began in the state of Veracruz, Mexico, with evidence that there had been an ongoing epidemic for months before it was officially recognized as such (McNeil 2009). The Mexican government closed most of Mexico City's public and private facilities in an attempt to contain the spread of the virus; however, it continued to spread globally, and clinics in some areas were overwhelmed by infected people. In June, the World Health Organization (WHO) and US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stopped counting cases and declared the outbreak a pandemic (WHO/Chan 2009).

The pandemic began to taper off in November 2009 (McKay 2009), and by May 2010, the number of cases was in steep decline (WHO 2010). On 10 August 2010 the World Health Organization announced the end of the H1N1 pandemic (Helsingin Sanomat 2010). According to the WHO statistics from July 2010, the virus had killed more than 18,000 people since it appeared in April 2009 (redOrbit 2010), approximately 4% of the 250,000 to 500,000 annual influenza deaths (WHO 2009).

Now the H1N1 influenza virus has moved into the post-pandemic period. However, localized outbreaks of various magnitudes are likely to continue. Influenza outbreaks, including those primarily caused by the H1N1 virus, show an intensity similar to that seen during seasonal epidemics. Recently published studies indicate that 20–40% of populations in some areas have been infected by the H1N1 virus and thus have some level of protective immunity. Many countries report good vaccination coverage, especially in high-risk groups, and this coverage further increases community-wide immunity (WHO 2010b).

In Finland the first laboratory confirmed cases of influenza A(H1N1) was discovered on May 2009. At that time the spread of influenza A(H1N1) to Finland was expected as the virus has spread widely around the world (THL 2009a). The first death in Finland associated with the A(H1N1)v influenza virus was confirmed in on October 2009. As of 26 October 2009, there had been 522 confirmed cases of influenza A(H1N1)v in Finland. In the same time the epidemic had continued its spread throughout Europe (THL 2009b).

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (MSAH) and the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) both recommended the vaccine, especially to the priority groups (health care professionals, pregnant women and persons aged from 6 months to 64 years belonging to a risk group due to another illness), to prevent the spread and severe complications of the illness (THL 2009b). The MSAH asked the THL to give opinion about getting vaccines. As the THL saw it, getting vaccines were very reasoned in that situation. By procurement it was confirmed to have vaccines fast. Firm reservation was made at the end of April 2009 right after the news from new epidemic had come (THL 2010).

Vaccination of health care personnel against influenza A(H1N1)v was initiated around the country during autumn. The plan was to start vaccinating pregnant women after health care personnel. After this, local authorities began vaccinating risk groups, according to the stated schedule. The proposal for the order of vaccination in Finland was approved by the Government in September 2009. The order was determined on medical grounds. Finland was among the first countries in Europe to receive the vaccine (THL 2009b).

The influenza vaccine being used in Finland was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), and it was also recommended by the World Health Organisation. The vaccine contained an adjuvant, a substance that enhances the immune response so less extract of the virus is needed in each dose. This immune response-enhancing substance had been thoroughly reviewed and tested even before it was considered for use in vaccines. The pandemic influenza vaccine had not been used in practice, but previous vaccines had provided data and knowledge on the behaviour of parts of it and other closely related vaccines. THL announced that the vaccine might cause side effects similar to seasonal flu vaccines, like a sore arm from the shot, headache, muscles aches, joint pains and mild fever. The vaccine effectiveness was expected to be good, about 90 percent (THL 2009b).

Since August 2010, following widespread use of vaccines against influenza (H1N1) 2009, cases of narcolepsy, especially in children and adolescents, have been reported from at least 12 countries. Narcolepsy is a rare sleep disorder that causes a person to fall asleep suddenly and unexpectedly. The rates reported from Sweden, Finland and Iceland have been notably higher than those from other countries (WHO 2011) .In Finland during 2009–2010, 60 children and adolescents aged 4–19 years were diagnosed with narcolepsy. This number is based on patient data collected from hospitals discharge registers and primary health care on all identified narcolepsy cases and an independent assessment of the patient records by an expert panel of neurologists and sleep researchers. When combining this information to pandemic vaccination data obtained from primary health care, it was noted that 52 persons, i.e. nearly 90 % of the cases, had received Pandemrix vaccine, when the vaccination coverage of that particular age group was 70 %. According to these preliminary results, which still need to be confirmed, the risk of narcolepsy in the age group of 4–19 years was 9-fold among those Pandemrix-vaccinated in comparison with those unvaccinated in the same age group, corresponding to a risk of about 1 case of narcolepsy per 12,000 vaccinated in this age group. The increase was most marked among those 5–15-years of age. No cases were observed in children less than 4 years of age. Among persons over 19 years of age the incidence of narcolepsy has not increased and there is no sign that the vaccine had had an effect on the risk for falling ill with narcolepsy. Overall, the observed association between the vaccine and narcolepsy in the age group of 4–19 years is so evident that it is unlikely that some underlying or so-called confounding factor could alone completely explain it (THL 2011).

Narcolepsy is a condition that has a strong genetic linkage. Of the cases of narcolepsy tested so far in Finland (n=22), diagnosed during 2009-2010, all have the same genotype. It is considered most likely that the Pandemrix vaccine increased the risk of narcolepsy in a joint effect in those genetically disposed with some other, still unknown, genetic and/or environmental factor (WHO 2011).

In those countries which used similar pandemic vaccines in 2009-2010, an increased incidence of narcolepsy in children and adolescents has been observed only in Finland, Sweden and Iceland. In contrast to Finland, increased numbers of narcolepsy have been observed also among unvaccinated children and adolescents in Iceland. In Norway, United Kingdom, Germany and Canada, an estimated total of 3,5 million 4–19 year old children and adolescents have been vaccinated with the same vaccine as in Finland with no sign of an increase in narcolepsy (THL 2011).

The association between narcolepsy and Pandemrix vaccine requires much further investigation (THL 2011).

----#: . A very thorough background description. Although it is a bit more extensive than is needed for the DA study plan exercise, the effort spent in this will probably pay off in making the RM analysis exercise --Mikko Pohjola 15:24, 25 March 2011 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Scope

Purpose

Purpose of this DA study is to evaluate the impact of vaccination in Finland.

Questions addressed in the study are

  • was the decision to vaccinate everybody the right one?
  • would it have been better if vaccinations were not done?

----#: . There is no point in this exercise to create many pages. Therefore, I removed the links to these not-yet-existing pages. --Jouni 08:33, 27 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Boundaries

  • Spatial and temporal boundaries of the study: assessment from Finland, from June 2009 to March 2011
  • Actions of Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and National Institute for Health and Welfare

Scenarios

vaccinate a risk group only [health care worker, pregnant women,children below age two or five, diabetics, people with asthma or other chronic lung diseases, neurological and neuromuscular disorders,heart diseases, kidney diseases and suppressed immune systems (HIV)]

  • possible outbreak (some people may have undiagnosed diseases)
  • reduced cost of vaccination
  • reduced side effect (limited to only the risk group)
  • reduction in disease development and possibly death.
  • easy management of those vaccinated


No vaccination:

  • spreading of swine flu 2009 pandemic leading to high amount of H1N1 cases, deaths
  • H1N1 fades away with minor impacts

----1: . Based on what I read, it seems that you have exactly one decision: Who should be vaccinated in Finland. This has two (three?) options: 1) Vaccinate everyone (which is what was actually done), 2) don't vaccinate anyone (this is called a scenario, because it did not and will not actually happen, 3) vaccinate a risk group only (this is also a scenario). Are you taking number 3 in or not? This is not clear. If you do, define the risk group. --Jouni 07:02, 25 March 2011 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Intended users

  • Ministry of Social and Health Affairs of Finland and all opasnet users.

Participants

Anna Kokkonen, Jukka-Pekka Männikkö, Oluyemi Toyinbo (Group 1)

others?

----#: . You can consider both who actually do participate in making the plan and who should/could be participating in making the actual analysis study according to the plan. However, this is not the most crucial thing to consider in this exercise. --Mikko Pohjola 15:24, 25 March 2011 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Definition

Add a legend for your diagram.

Decision variables

Decision about vaccination coverage:

  • to vaccinate everybody (limit the 2009 swine flu pandemic or limit the future swine flu epidemics by pre-emptive vaccination or side effects leading to life time illness or deaths compared to actual risk of complications from H1N1)
  • not to vaccinate anyone

Indicators

For decision to vaccinate everybody we will measure the indicators

  • amount of swine flu cases by the number of cases in Finland (compared to population) from June 2009 to March 2011
  • amount of complications due to swine flu by the number of swine flu complication cases in Finland
  • amount of complications due to swine flu vaccination by the number of swine flu vaccination complication cases in Finland

For scenario not to vaccinate anyone we will measure the

  • amount of swine flu cases by the number of cases in Mexico (compared to population) from June 2009 to March 2011
  • amount of complications due to swine flu by the number of swine flu complication cases in Mexico

----#: . What you measure should be the same for all decision options and therefore there is no need to list outcomes per option. Of course, if you don't vaccinate anyone the expectation for the vaccine complications is 0; this branch can be left out from a decision tree. But if you draw a causal diagram, all indicators link to the decision. --Jouni 08:33, 27 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

All impacts will be converted to DALY's.

----3: . Based on the graph, you seem to have three indicators (i.e., outcomes of interest): 1) amount of swine flu cases, 2) amount of complications due to swine flu, amount of complications due to swine flu vaccination. You can measure these in different ways, and you should decide how. Suggested possibilities: probability that a random individual gets the outcome; number of cases in Finland; number of cases in a defined subpopulation of interest; all impacts converted to DALY or QALY. --Jouni 07:02, 25 March 2011 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----5: . The critical thing that you have not described is this: How would you estimate the outcome (e.g # of cases), if decision option 1 is selected? How would you estimate if decision option 2 is selected, and so on. The estimation is clearly different with different decision options, because number 1 actually happened but number 2 did not. --Jouni 07:02, 25 March 2011 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Other variables

----#: . identify a) the variables that are needed to make a continuous causal chain from decision variable(s) to indicator(s), b) possible other variables needed to estimate the indicator result(s). Based on this you can consider how the calculation could be done (if you had the numbers) --Mikko Pohjola 16:28, 25 March 2011 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . This is now the critical part: explaining how you can estimate the impacts. --Jouni 08:33, 27 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Calculation

  • means, methods, and tools (e.f. software) needed for the study
  • description of a (executable) calculative DA model
  • description of the execution of the model
  • analyses on the model, its parts, and its results (e.g. uncertainty, sensitivity, VOI, applicability...)

----#: . Once you have the causal chain from decision(s) to indicator(s) covered, try to work out how the indicator result(s) could be calculated. Is something (some variables) possibly missing? --Mikko Pohjola 15:24, 25 March 2011 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Analyses

EXTRA

Results

References

Chan M. 2009. World now at the start of 2009 influenza pandemic. World Health Organization. [1]. Published 11.6.2009

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP). 2009. Updated Interim Recommendations for the Use of Antiviral Medications in the Treatment and Prevention of Influenza for the 2009–2010 Season. H1N1 Flu. [2]. Published 7.12.2009

Bronze, MS. H1N1 Influenza (Swine Flu). eMedicine. Medscape. [3]. Published 13.11.2009

Helsingin Sanomat. 2010. WHO julisti: Sikainfluenssa on ohi. Published 10.8.2010 [4]

McKay B. (2010-03-02). The Flu Season That Fizzled. The Wall Street Journal. [5]. Published 2.3.2010

McNeil DG. 2009. In New Theory, Swine Flu Started in Asia, Not Mexico". The New York Times. [6]. Published 23.6.2009

National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL). 2009a. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health: Two cases of influenza A(H1N1) confirmed in Finland. Published 12.5.2009 [7]

National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL). 2009b. THL and MSAH: Influenza A(H1N1)v epidemic about to start, first death in Finland confirmed. Published 27.10.2009 [8]

National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL). 2010. Pandemiarokotehankinnasta piti päättää nopeasti. Published 19.11.2010 [9]

National Institute of Health and Welfare (THL). 2011. Interim Report of the National Narcolepsy Task Force, 31 January 2011. Published 31.3.2011.

RedOrbit. 2010. H1N1 Still A Pandemic, Says WHO. 2010. [10]. Published 20.7.2010

WHO. 2009. Influenza (Seasonal). April 2009. [11]. Retrieved 2010-02-13.

WHO. 2010a. Global Update on 2009 H1N1. Global Intensity Map, Week 17 (April 26, 2010-May 2, 2010). [12]

WHO 2010b. H1N1 in post-pandemic period. Director-General's opening statement at virtual press conference. Published 10.8.2010 [13]

WHO. 2011. Statement on narcolepsy and vaccination. Published 8.2.2011. [14]

Writing Committee of the WHO Consultation on Clinical Aspects of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza. 2010. Clinical Aspects of Pandemic 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Infection. The New England Journal of Medicine 362: 1708–19 [15]


Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=DARM_DA_study_exercise_Group_1&oldid=19512"