Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jun 10;17(6):e0269916. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269916

Impact of universal varicella vaccination on the use and cost of antibiotics and antivirals for varicella management in the United States

Manjiri Pawaskar 1,*, Jaime Fergie 2, Carolyn Harley 3, Salome Samant 1, Phani Veeranki 3, Oliver Diaz 3, James H Conway 4
Editor: Georges MGM Verjans5
PMCID: PMC9187103  PMID: 35687559

Abstract

Background

Our objective was to estimate the impact of universal varicella vaccination (UVV) on the use and costs of antibiotics and antivirals for the management of varicella among children in the United States (US).

Methods

A decision tree model of varicella vaccination, infections and treatment decisions was developed. Results were extrapolated to the 2017 population of 73.5 million US children. Model parameters were populated from published sources. Treatment decisions were derived from a survey of health care professionals’ recommendations. The base case modelled current vaccination coverage rates in the US with additional scenarios analyses conducted for 0%, 20%, and 80% coverage and did not account for herd immunity benefits.

Results

Our model estimated that 551,434 varicella cases occurred annually among children ≤ 18 years in 2017. Antivirals or antibiotics were prescribed in 23.9% of cases, with unvaccinated children receiving the majority for base case. The annual cost for varicella antiviral and antibiotic treatment was approximately $14 million ($26 per case), with cases with no complications accounting for $12 million. Compared with the no vaccination scenario, the current vaccination rates resulted in savings of $181 million (94.7%) for antivirals and $78 million (95.0%) for antibiotics annually. Scenario analyses showed that higher vaccination coverage (from 0% to 80%) resulted in reduced annual expenditures for antivirals (from $191 million to $41 million), and antibiotics ($82 million to $17 million).

Conclusions

UVV was associated with significant reductions in the use of antibiotics and antivirals and their associated costs in the US. Higher vaccination coverage was associated with lower use and costs of antibiotics and antivirals for varicella management.

Introduction

Varicella (chickenpox) is a highly contagious, acute infectious disease caused by the varicella zoster virus [13]. Though chickenpox typically presents in early childhood, (often <10 years of age in temperate countries), it can also occur in older children and adults [13]. It usually presents with fever, malaise and skin rash characterized by generalized, pruritic vesicles in crops [2,3]. While varicella is often mild and self-limiting, serious complications including secondary bacterial skin infections, bacterial and viral pneumonia, and cerebellar ataxia can occur, resulting in hospitalization and rarely death [24]. Secondary bacterial infection with Staphylococci or Streptococci is the most common complication in children, especially infants [2,3]. Risk of complications is higher in immunocompromised persons, neonates and adults [3,5].

The treatment of varicella and its complications depends on age, severity and underlying health status [6]. Most cases can be treated with over-the-counter medications. Antiviral medications such as acyclovir are not recommended for healthy children < 12 years, but may be considered in patients at high risk for moderate or severe varicella infection [7]. Antibiotics are not typically indicated for the management of primary varicella infection, but may be prescribed to treat complications associated with varicella infection such as secondary bacterial skin infections, bacterial pneumonia or other bacterial complications. A multi-country study of the burden of varicella reported that antibiotics were prescribed to nearly 13% of outpatient varicella cases and almost 70% of inpatient cases [8].

Vaccination has proven to be highly effective at reducing varicella-related morbidity and mortality [24,9]. The US was the first country to implement universal varicella vaccination (UVV) following Food and Drug Administration approval in 1995 (VARIVAX®, Varicella Virus Vaccine Live, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA) [10]. A second dose for all recipients was approved in 2005 and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in 2006 [3,10,11]. Between 1995 and 2010, annual varicella cases in the U.S. decreased by 92%, hospitalizations by 84%, and varicella-related deaths by 90% [12]. Previous economic analyses have suggested that UVV programs offer substantial financial savings as well as societal benefits, largely derived from direct and indirect costs related to varicella prevention. These savings are consistent regardless of the country studied and the type of healthcare system in place [13,14].

In spite of the proven benefits of UVV, there are only 39 countries that have included varicella vaccination in their national immunization program [8,10]. Considering the on-going challenges with antibiotic resistance globally, this study aimed to estimate the potential reduction in the annual burden of antibiotic and antiviral use in the US due to the universal varicella vaccination program [9,15,16].

Methods

We developed a decision tree model to estimate the annual number of varicella cases, antiviral and antibiotic prescriptions, and costs among children aged < 18 years in the US in 2017 under different vaccination coverage scenarios. (Fig 1). Model inputs included the proportion of children vaccinated against varicella (unvaccinated, one dose and 2 doses), annual varicella incidence by vaccination status, the proportion of children who developed varicella with and without complications by vaccination status, the proportion prescribed antivirals and antibiotics for varicella with and without complications, and associated costs [17,18]. The inputs were uniform across ages and did not account for herd immunity benefits. Inputs were obtained from published sources with details provided in Tables A-D in S1 Appendix.

Fig 1. Varicella model structure.

Fig 1

Varicella Model Structure: This figure represents the vaccination states of patients and possible treatment decisions within our model. * * *Treatment decisions could be antibiotic therapy, antiviral therapy, both, or none for each varicella case.

Treatment decision information (i.e. the probability of antibiotic therapy, antiviral therapy, both, or none for each varicella case) was based on a 2019 survey of health care providers who provided their electronic written consent, in a study which was determined to be exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight by Advarra IRB (Table E in S1 Appendix) [19]. As the model used secondary, published data, additional IRB review was not required. Antibiotic and antiviral drug costs were calculated for the most commonly prescribed antibiotics and antivirals for varicella for children from published sources and expert opinion (Tables C-D in S1 Appendix). The base case and scenarios used probabilistic sampling and 10 million replications to produce estimates of antibiotic and antiviral medication prescriptions and related costs.

In the base case, outcomes were estimated over one year using the vaccination coverage rate in the U.S. (93.8% receiving 2 doses, 2.4% receiving a single dose, and 3.8% unvaccinated against varicella) [17]. We evaluated additional scenarios that potentially reflect varicella vaccination globally. Scenarios modeled were: no vaccination (i.e., 0% vaccinated) reflecting countries without any vaccination programs; 20% vaccinated, reflecting countries who have varicella vaccination available through private insurance but no UVV; and 80% vaccinated (the minimum vaccination coverage, recommended by WHO for implementing UVV.) [2]. To estimate annual prescriptions and costs in US dollars for 2020 prevented through the UVV program in the US, the base case was compared to no vaccination scenario. Costs were reported in 2020 USD.

Results

Varicella cases

Results of the base case model are presented in Table 1. Under current vaccination coverage rates, a total of 551,434 cases of varicella were estimated to occur annually among US children < 18 years of age with 396,633 varicella cases among unvaccinated children, 14,406 cases among those vaccinated with a single dose and 140,395 cases among those vaccinated with 2 doses of varicella vaccine (See Table A in S1 Appendix for details). The majority of cases occurred in unvaccinated children (71.9%, 396,633 cases); 94.5% (521,143 cases) of cases had no complications while 5.5% (30,291) of all cases had some complication.

Table 1. Estimated annual varicella cases, antibiotic prescriptions and antiviral prescriptions in the US population under 18 years old by vaccination status, base case.

Unvaccinated 1-Dose
(partial)
2-Dose
(full)
Total
Population 2,796,155
(3.8%)
1,765,992
(2.4%)
69,020,868
(93.8%)
73,583,015
(100%)
Varicella cases
(% of population)
(Row %)
396,633
(14.2%)
(71.9%)
14,406
(0.8%)
(2.6%)
140,395
(0.2%)
(25.5%)
551,434
(0.7%)
(100%)
Cases with no complications
(% of Cases)
369,625
(93.2%)
14,029
(97.4%)
137,490
(97.9%)
521,143
(94.5%)
Cases with complications
(% of Cases)
27,007
(6.8%)
378
(2.6%)
2,906
(2.1%)
30,291
(5.5%)
Cases with antiviral or antibiotic prescription
(% of cases)
96,812
(24.4%)
3,276
(22.7%)
31,667
(22.6%)
131,754
(23.9%)
Antiviral prescription only
(% of cases)
(row %)
66,988
(16.9%)
(72.0%)
2,428
(16.9%)
(2.6%)
23,681
(16.9%)
(25.4%)
93,098
(16.9%)
(100%)
Antibiotic prescription only
(% of cases)
(row %)
33,766
(8.5%)
(77.5%)
955
(6.6%)
(2.2%)
8,869
(6.3%)
(20.3%)
43,590
(7.9%)
(100%)
Total prescriptions
(Row %)
100,755
(73.8%)
3,383
(2.5%)
32,550
(23.8%)
136,688
(100%)

Base case scenario. Results were extrapolated to the 2017 population of 73.5 million US children (0–18 years) with vaccination coverage as follows: Unvaccinated: 3.8%; 1 dose: 2.4%; 2 doses: 93.8%. See supplement for details.

Antibiotics and antiviral prescription use

The model estimated that antivirals or antibiotics were prescribed in 23.9% of all varicella cases annually (Table 1). Unvaccinated children received the majority (73.7%) of total prescriptions, accounting for 72.0% and 77.5% of all antivirals and antibiotics prescribed, respectively (Table H in S1 Appendix). Cases with complications were more likely to be prescribed medications (91.4%) compared to varicella cases without any complications (21.5%) (Table F in S1 Appendix). For cases with complications, antibiotics (68.7% of all prescriptions) were more commonly prescribed than antivirals (31.3%) while the reverse was true for cases with no complications (75.2% antivirals versus 24.8% antibiotics) (Table F in S1 Appendix).

Medication costs

Under the base case scenario, the current vaccination rates resulted in savings of $181 million (94.7%) for antivirals and $78 million (95.0%) for antibiotics annually compared to no vaccination. The annual cost of antivirals and antibiotics associated with varicella was estimated to be $14 million ($26 per case), with varicella cases with no complications accounting for nearly $12 million ($23 per case), and those associated with complications accounting for just over $2 million ($71 per case) (Table 2; Table G in S1 Appendix). Unvaccinated children accounted for 73.5% of total costs, including $7.3 million in antiviral costs and $3.1 million in antibiotic costs annually.

Table 2. Estimated total number of prescriptions and associated costs of antiviral and antibiotic use for the base case (Varicella cases with and without complications).

Antivirals Antibiotics Total
Annual prescription (n) for
 Cases with no complications 86,188 28,427 114,615
 Cases with complications 6,910 15,164 22,074
 Total 93,098 43,591 136,688
Annual costs ($) for
 Cases with no complications $9,335,884 $2,630,542 $11,966,426
 Cases with complications $748,491 $1,403,277 $2,151,768
 Total $10,084,375 $4,033,819 $14,118,194

*Base case: Current vaccination scenario in USA with unvaccinated: 3.8%; 1 dose: 2.4%; 2 doses: 93.8%.

** Compared to No vaccination scenario, the Base case scenario had 95.9% fewer annual prescriptions (153,877 fewer antiviral and 340,521 fewer antibiotic prescriptions); See supplement for further details.

Scenario analysis

Results from the three modeled scenarios (no vaccination, 20% vaccinated, and 80% vaccinated) are presented in Figs 2, 3 and 4. The total number of varicella cases in each scenario decreased as vaccination coverage increased, from 10,437,699 (no vaccination scenario) to 8,382,342 (20% vaccinated) to 2,216,273 cases (80% vaccinated scenario) (details provided in Table H in S1 Appendix). A similar pattern was evident for the number of antivirals and antibiotics prescribed, with the no vaccination scenario having the most antiviral and antibiotic prescriptions (1,762,865 annual antiviral and 888,581 annual antibiotic prescriptions), and the 80% vaccination scenario having the least (374,285 annual antiviral and 185,886 annual antibiotic prescriptions). Annual antiviral and antibiotic prescriptions ranged from $41 to $191 million in drug costs while antibiotics ranged from for $17 to $82 million, depending on scenario (Fig 4) (see Table I and L in S1 Appendix for details).

Fig 2. Estimated annual prescriptions (varicella cases with no complications), scenario analysis.

Fig 2

*Total number of annual prescriptions. Annual prescriptions avoided when compared to no vaccination scenario.

Fig 3. Estimated annual prescriptions (cases with complications), scenario analysis.

Fig 3

*Total number of annual prescriptions. Annual prescriptions avoided when compared to no vaccination scenario.

Fig 4. Estimated annual prescription costs to treat varicella, scenario analysis.

Fig 4

*Total annual prescriptions costs. Percent reduction compared to no vaccination scenario.

Compared to no vaccination, the current UVV program in the US resulted in an estimated reduction of the use of antiviral and antibiotic prescriptions of 94.6% annually (2,020,361 fewer total annual prescriptions) for varicella cases with no complications and by 95.7% (494,397 fewer total annual prescriptions) for varicella with complications (Table 2; Tables J and K in S1 Appendix). This resulted in a 94.8% reduction ($259,064,629) in antibiotic and antiviral costs compared to the no vaccination scenario (Table L in S1 Appendix).

Discussion

This study assessed the impact of UVV on the annual use of antibiotics and antivirals in the US where UVV has been implemented for over 25 years with high vaccination coverage rates. Our model demonstrated significant reductions in the annual use of antibiotics, antivirals and associated costs for varicella management, after the implementation of UVV in the US. Scenario analyses also demonstrated the high economic burden associated with the use of antibiotics and antivirals with no vaccination or lower coverage rates.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates one in three antibiotic prescriptions in the US is unnecessary [20] and may contribute to the risk of microbial antibiotic resistance [8]. Previous studies have shown the importance of both bacterial and viral vaccines in preventing antimicrobial prescriptions [8,21,22]. While our research does not attempt to evaluate antibiotic resistance directly, the overuse of antibiotics in the management of varicella may contribute to antimicrobial resistance.

The implementation of UVV program with high vaccination coverage rates has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality significantly, both in the US and globally [13,23]. Our study showed further benefits of UVV in terms of reducing prescription medication use for the management of varicella overall, and that of varicella with complications in particular, which often require antibiotics regimens for managing secondary infections. Our study estimated 30,291 varicella cases with complications annually, of which 91.4% were prescribed either antiviral or antibiotics. Our study estimated over $259 million cost saving associated with use of antibiotics and antivirals after implementation of UVV. The varicella cases with complications were not only associated with higher annual cost of antiviral and antibiotic prescriptions but also add to other direct (e.g., hospitalization, over-the-counter medications.) and indirect costs (e.g., productivity loss due to caregiver absenteeism) associated with varicella, which are not accounted for in this study [2,2428].

Our model also showed considerable use of antibiotics and antivirals for management of varicella cases with no complications. This could be attributed to the high-risk patients as well as rarity of the disease in the US potentially leading to misdiagnosis or mistreatment of varicella cases with no complications. Use of antivirals is necessary for immunocompromised patients and older aged children [7]. Although high risk patients may need to be treated with antivirals, potential overuse of antibiotics and antivirals could be avoided by implementing strategies to improve the recognition and management of varicella infection. Since the implementation of UVV in the US, the annual number of varicella cases has substantially declined with fewer individuals seeking healthcare professional assistance. Hence, expanding education for health care providers to better recognize symptoms and manage cases with complications versus those without any complication, could further reduce the use of antibiotics, antivirals, as well as other medications such as immunoglobulin therapies.

Our scenario analyses highlighted the importance of higher vaccination coverage after implementing UVV. The use and costs of antibiotics and antivirals were highest in the no vaccination scenario (0% coverage) and decreased with increasing vaccination coverage. Based upon the US experience, countries that have implemented or are planning to implement UVV should consider strategies to improve and maintain vaccination coverage over 80% in order to significantly reduce the use and costs of antivirals and antibiotics.

Our study has several limitations. This is a cross-section predictive model consists of only pediatric population and not an epidemiological model with entire US population. It does not account for the indirect benefits among the unvaccinated (including adults) through herd immunity effects. Hence, this model cannot provide any insights on the herd immunity with varicella vaccination. However, there is strong real world evidence supporting herd immunity due to varicella vaccination in the US with significant reductions reported in varicella incidence and varicella related hospitalizations even among the unvaccinated [10,2932]. Although herd immunity for varicella is achieved in the US, VZV can also be transmitted to unvaccinated children from adults with herpes zoster; however, it is less contagious than that from patients with varicella. A household study reported that 16% of susceptible children <15 years old exposed to herpes zoster developed varicella [33]. Some clinical parameters used in our model such as the annual incidence of varicella and incidence of cases with complications after 1 and 2 doses were derived from randomized control trials, which did not account for herd immunity effects. Hence, our model estimated a larger number of varicella cases annually (551,434 cases i.e. 0.75% of children under 18 years of age in 2017) than current estimates reported by the CDC (350,000 cases annually).(12) Hence, our model may have underestimated the benefits and cost-savings related to vaccination and provided more conservative estimates of benefits of vaccination.

The data on prescribing patterns came from a previously conducted survey that provided physicians with 8 patient vignettes [19]. While these were developed using literature review and expert consultation [14], they may not reflect all potential patient profiles or treatment decision-making in clinical practice accurately. Our analysis focused on only antibiotic and antiviral prescribing. Other prescriptions for immunoglobulins or the use of over-the-counter medications like antihistamines were not measured, resulting in more conservative medication cost estimates.

Conclusion

Our model estimated substantial reductions in annual antiviral and antibiotic use and associated costs among children after implementation of a UVV program in the U.S. The model also demonstrated that increased vaccination coverage resulted in significant reductions in antibiotic and antiviral use and costs associated with varicella management. Based upon the US experience, universal varicella vaccination could be considered as a strategy to reduce the use of antibiotics and antivirals which may further help with reducing the risk of antibiotic resistance.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Additional supporting information.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Lara Wolfson for her contributions to the study concept and design; Joanna MacEwan and Taylor Schwartz for their contributions to the study design and data analysis; Richard Murphy for his contributions to manuscript preparation, and Shikha Surati for her project management support and data validation. Part of this research was presented at the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases Virtual Meeting, May 24–29, 2020.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This study was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. M. Pawaskar and S. Samant, are employees of MSD and own stocks in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. P. Veeranki, and C. Harley, are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received financial support from MSD, for the execution of this research. Though they received no payment for their work on this study, J. H. Conway reports grants and personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, Merck, GSK, and Centers for Disease Control outside of the submitted work while J. Fergie reports personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work.

References

  • 1.Gershon AA, Breuer J, Cohen JI, Cohrs RJ, Gershon MD, Gilden D, et al. Varicella zoster virus infection. Nature reviews Disease primers. 2015;1:15016. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2015.16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Weekly epidemiological record, Varicella and herpes zoster vaccines: WHO position paper, June 2014 2014 [https://www.who.int/wer/2014/wer8925.pdf?ua=1.
  • 3.Lopez A, Harrington T, Marin M. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epidemiology and prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases, E-Book: The Pink Book.: Public Health Foundation; 2015. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/varicella.html.
  • 4.CDC. Complications 2021 [https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/about/complications.html.
  • 5.Kennedy PGE, Gershon AA. Clinical Features of Varicella-Zoster Virus Infection. Viruses. 2018;10(11):609. doi: 10.3390/v10110609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.CDC. Prevention and Treatment [updated 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/about/prevention-treatment.html.
  • 7.CDC. For Healthcare Professionals 2021 [https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/hcp/index.html#managing-high-risk.
  • 8.Wolfson LJ, Castillo ME, Giglio N, Mészner Z, Molnár Z, Vàzquez M, et al. The use of antibiotics in the treatment of pediatric varicella patients: real-world evidence from the multi-country MARVEL study in Latin America & Europe. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):826. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7071-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.World Health Organization. Antimicrobial resistance 2020 [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance.
  • 10.Varela FH, Pinto LA, Scotta MC. Global impact of varicella vaccination programs. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics. 2019;15(3):645–57. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1546525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Marin M, Güris D, Chaves S, Schmid S, Seward J. Advisory committee on immunization practices, centers for disease control and prevention (CDC). Prevention of varicella: recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2007;56(RR-4):1–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.CDC. Chickenpox Vaccine Saves Lives and Prevents Serious Illness Infographic 2021 [https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/vaccine-infographic.html.
  • 13.Unim B, Saulle R, Boccalini S, Taddei C, Ceccherini V, Boccia A, et al. Economic evaluation of Varicella vaccination: results of a systematic review. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(9):1932–42. doi: 10.4161/hv.25228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhou F, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Guris D, Shefer A, Lieu T, Seward JF. An Economic Analysis of the Universal Varicella Vaccination Program in the United States. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2008;197(Supplement_2):S156–S64. doi: 10.1086/522135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.CDC. Antibiotic / Antimicrobial Resistance (AR / AMR) 2020 [https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/index.html.
  • 16.Moses AE, Goldberg S, Korenman Z, Ravins M, Hanski E, Shapiro M. Invasive group a streptococcal infections, Israel. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(4):421–6. doi: 10.3201/eid0804.010278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mellerson JL, Maxwell CB, Knighton CL, Kriss JL, Seither R, Black CL. Vaccination Coverage for Selected Vaccines and Exemption Rates Among Children in Kindergarten—United States, 2017–18 School Year. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2018;67(40):1115–22. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6740a3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kuter B, Matthews H, Shinefield H, Black S, Dennehy P, Watson B, et al. Ten year follow-up of healthy children who received one or two injections of varicella vaccine. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 2004;23(2):132–7. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000109287.97518.67 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fergie J, Pawaskar MD, Veerkani P, Samant S, Harley C, MacEwan J, et al. 1387. Current practices in the diagnosis and treatment of varicella infections in the United States. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2020;7(Supplement_1):S703–S4. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.CDC: 1 in 3 antibiotic prescriptions unnecessary [press release]. 2016.
  • 21.Klugman KP, Black S. Impact of existing vaccines in reducing antibiotic resistance: Primary and secondary effects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(51):12896–901. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1721095115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Micoli F, Bagnoli F, Rappuoli R, Serruto D. The role of vaccines in combatting antimicrobial resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19(5):287–302. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-00506-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Marin M, Marti M, Kambhampati A, Jeram SM, Seward JF. Global Varicella Vaccine Effectiveness: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20153741. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3741 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Spoulou V, Alain S, Gabutti G, Giaquinto C, Liese J, Martinon-Torres F, et al. Implementing Universal Varicella Vaccination in Europe: The Path Forward. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 2019;38(2):181–8. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rozenbaum MH, van Hoek AJ, Vegter S, Postma MJ. Cost-effectiveness of varicella vaccination programs: an update of the literature. Expert review of vaccines. 2008;7(6):753–82. doi: 10.1586/14760584.7.6.753 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Azzari C, Baldo V, Giuffrida S, Gani R, O’Brien E, Alimenti C, et al. The Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Varicella Vaccination in Italy: A Model-Based Assessment of Vaccination Strategies. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research: CEOR. 2020;12:273–83. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S229685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Heininger U, Pillsbury M, Samant S, Lienert F, Guggisberg P, Gani R, et al. Health Impact and Cost-effectiveness Assessment for the Introduction of Universal Varicella Vaccination in Switzerland. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 2021;40(6):e217–e21. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000003136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pawaskar M, Samant, S., Heininger, U., Bencina, G., Flem E., Méroc E., Riera-Montes M, editor Economic burden of varicella in Europe in absence of universal varicella vaccination. European Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases (ESPID) 2020 October 26-29, 2020.
  • 29.Baxter R, Ray P, Tran TN, Black S, Shinefield HR, Coplan PM, et al. Long-term effectiveness of varicella vaccine: a 14-Year, prospective cohort study. Pediatrics. 2013;131(5):e1389–96. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Baxter R, Tran TN, Ray P, Lewis E, Fireman B, Black S, et al. Impact of vaccination on the epidemiology of varicella: 1995–2009. Pediatrics. 2014;134(1):24–30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-4251 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Leung J, Harpaz R. Impact of the maturing varicella vaccination program on varicella and related outcomes in the United States: 1994–2012. Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. 2016;5(4):395–402. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piv044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bialek SR, Perella D, Zhang J, Mascola L, Viner K, Jackson C, et al. Impact of a routine two-dose varicella vaccination program on varicella epidemiology. Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):e1134–40. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Seiler H. A study of herpes zoster particularly in its relationship to chickenpox. Epidemiology & Infection. 1949;47(3):253–62. doi: 10.1017/s002217240001456x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Georges MGM Verjans

22 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-40227IMPACT OF UNIVERSAL VARICELLA VACCINATION ON THE USE AND COST OF ANTIBIOTICS AND ANTIVIRALS FOR VARICELLA MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATESPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pawaskar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 06 2022 11:59PM If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Georges M.G.M. Verjans, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“”This work was funded by Merck & Co.

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [DETAILS AS NEEDED] Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr Pawaskar and colleagues,

Your manuscript has been reviewed by two experts in the field. Both reviewers and I agree that your manuscript is well written and of interest to the field. Minor revisions are requested to improve the manuscript, please do so per reviewers' suggestions.

Best regards,

Georges MGM Verjans

www.herpeslab.nl

Dept. Viroscience

Rotterdam

The Netherlands

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents a version of a cost-benefit analysis for varicella vaccination in the United States in 2017. The authors show the expected cost reductions associated with universal vaccination in the USA. The goal of the report appears to be an opportunity to convince other countries to authorize universal varicella vaccination. A few comments are listed below.

1. Results, Varicella cases, lines 124-8 and Table 1. This table contains numbers that are not widely known among vaccine experts. The authors state that 93.8% of children in the USA were vaccinated against varicella in 2017. Yet the authors estimate that 396,633 cases of wild-type varicella (chickenpox) occurred in the remaining unvaccinated population of children. Please write more in the text about how the authors arrived at the number of 396,633. Furthermore, the authors estimate that 140,395 cases of break-through varicella occurred in the fully vaccinated children. Please write more in the text about how the authors arrived at the number of 140,395.

2. Add new section near the top of the Discussion about varicella herd immunity. If the number of cases of varicella in Table 1 are correct, the USA does not appear to have achieved herd immunity for varicella, even with an immunization rate of 93.8%. This is a striking conclusion, especially when we are at the end of the COVID-19 epidemic. In the USA, about 65% of the population has received complete COVID-19 vaccination. Can the authors state whether they think varicella or COVID-19 is more contagious? If they are roughly equally contagious, based on this report, the USA will never achieve herd immunity against COVID-19 by immunization, since we will never achieve greater than 92% COVID-19 vaccination. After the COVID-19 epidemic, there appears to be ever greater resistance to vaccination in the USA. Please discuss the above points in a new paragraph in the Discussion about what is meant by herd immunity and whether we have achieved herd immunity to varicella in the USA in 2017?.

3. Abstract. Suggest that one sentence about herd immunity be added into the Abstract. Was there herd immunity in the USA in 2017 against wild type varicella? Presumably herd immunity would never be achievable with an 80% immunization rate?

Reviewer #2: The aim of this study was to estimate the use of antivirals and antibiotics for treating varicella in children. The impact of vaccination was modeled after the experience in the U.S., where Varivax coverage is high. The use of antimicrobial therapy was estimated from a prescriber survey of 8 clinical vignettes. The parameters of the model were taken from published sources, although the actual reported varicella cases from the CDC were not used. This model was also used to predict the cost savings from reduced prescriptions in countries where vaccine coverage was absent, intermediate, or high. The findings presented here are interesting and compelling, although they should be taken as estimates only. These results could be used for future policy decisions on implementing varicella vaccine guidelines.

Line 127: correct typo, remove “were”.

Line 149: correct typo “d”.

Line 225: correct typo “nay”.

Supplemental Table 6 contains the key estimates of the model. However, it is difficult to find the “Total Varicella Cases” and the “Total Cases with no complications” and further down the “Total Cases with complications”. These rows are shaded gray and the font is bold. Why are these values not the top rows of the entire table? Why are they embedded in other rows that show the number of cases treated with antivirals or antibiotics? Every other row is a subset of these two key estimates, which form the base cases from the model.

In the Discussion, the point is raised that the estimate of total varicella cases may be high compared to the CDC estimates. How much higher? The CDC estimate should be included here, and the justification not to use that value should be explained. In fact, herd immunity will have a strong effect on the actual number of varicella cases in the U.S., because outbreaks of chicken pox are becoming rare. More often, varicella arises in unvaccinated children (or infants <1) who are exposed to adults with zoster. A more nuanced discussion of this situation could be added to the manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jun 10;17(6):e0269916. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269916.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 May 2022

May 5, 2022

To,

Georges M.G.M. Verjans, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor,

PLOS ONE

Reference: PONE-D-21-40227 Response to reviewers

Dear Dr. Verjans,

On behalf of my co-authors, we are pleased to resubmit our manuscript entitled “Impact of universal varicella vaccination on the use and cost of antibiotics and antivirals for varicella management in the United States” for publication review in Plos One.

We appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript provided by the editor and reviewers. We have carefully studied each comment, provided point-by-point responses, and revised our manuscript accordingly. The line numbers provided correspond to the line numbers in the tracked changes version of the manuscript. We hope that these revisions meet your approval.

In addition, the corporate address of our company has changed, and the funding statement should be revised as “This study was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. M. Pawaskar and S. Samant, are employees of MSD and own stocks in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. P. Veeranki, and C. Harley, are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received financial support from MSD, for the execution of this research. Though they received no payment for their work on this study, J. H. Conway reports grants and personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, Merck, GSK, and Centers for Disease Control outside of the submitted work while J. Fergie reports personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work.”

Part of this research was presented as an oral presentation at the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases (ESPID) Virtual Meeting, May 24-29, 2020. However, the slides were not peer reviewed and were not published. The data was updated since then.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

On behalf of the co-authors,

Manjiri Pawaskar, PhD

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA

email: manjiri.pawaskar@merck.com

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers AMR 2 5.4.22.docx

Decision Letter 1

Georges MGM Verjans

1 Jun 2022

IMPACT OF UNIVERSAL VARICELLA VACCINATION ON THE USE AND COST OF ANTIBIOTICS AND ANTIVIRALS FOR VARICELLA MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

PONE-D-21-40227R1

Dear Dr. Pawaskar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Georges M.G.M. Verjans, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Georges MGM Verjans

3 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-40227R1

Impact of universal varicella vaccination on the use and cost of antibiotics and antivirals for varicella management in the United States

Dear Dr. Pawaskar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Dr. Georges M.G.M. Verjans

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Additional supporting information.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers AMR 2 5.4.22.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES