Differences between coverage of yellow fever vaccine and the first dose of measles-containing vaccine: A desk review of global data sources. Issue 32 (26th July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Adrien, Nedghie; Hyde, Terri B.; Gacic-Dobo, Marta; Hombach, Joachim; Krishnaswamy, Akshaya; Lambach, Philipp
• Is Part Of: Vaccine. Volume 37:Issue 32(2019)
• Page Start: 4511
• Page End: 4517
• Publication Date: 2019-07-26
• Subjects: Yellow fever vaccine -- Stock outs -- Routine immunization coverage -- Measles vaccine; Vaccines -- Periodicals; 615.372
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.06.063
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-410X

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The strategy to Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) is a global initiative that includes all countries with risk of yellow fever (YF) virus transmission. Of these, 40 countries (27 in Africa and 13 in the Americas) are considered high-risk and targeted for interventions to increase coverage of YF vaccine. Even though the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that YF vaccine be given concurrently with the first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) in YF-endemic settings, estimated coverage for MCV1 and YF vaccine have varied widely. The objective of this study was to review global data sources to assess discrepancies in YF vaccine and MCV1 coverage and identify plausible reasons for these discrepancies. Methods: We conducted a desk review of data from 34 countries (22 in Africa, 12 in Latin America), from 2006 to 2016, with national introduction of YF vaccine and listed as high-risk by the EYE strategy. Data reviewed included procured and administered doses, immunization schedules, routine coverage estimates and reported vaccine stock-outs. In the 30 countries included in the comparitive analysis, differences greater than 3 percentage points between YF vaccine and MCV1 coverage were considered meaningful. Results: In America, there were meaningful differences (7–45%) in coverage of the two vaccines in 6 (67%) of the 9 countries. In Africa, there were meaningful differences (4–27%) in coverage of the two vaccines in 9 (43%) of the 21 countries. Nine countries (26%) reported MVC1 stock-outs while sixteen countries (47%) reported YF vaccine stock-outs for three or more years during 2006–2016. Conclusion: In countries reporting significant differences in coverage of the two vaccines, differences may be driven by different target populations and vaccine availability. However, these were not sufficient to completely explain observed differences. Further follow-up is needed to identify possible reasons for differences in coverage rates in several countries where these could not fully be explained.