↓ Skip to main content

The role of a hepatitis C virus vaccine: modelling the benefits alongside direct-acting antiviral treatments

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The role of a hepatitis C virus vaccine: modelling the benefits alongside direct-acting antiviral treatments
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0440-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nick Scott, Emma McBryde, Peter Vickerman, Natasha K. Martin, Jack Stone, Heidi Drummer, Margaret Hellard

Abstract

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination is being seriously considered globally. Current elimination models require a combination of highly effective HCV treatment and harm reduction, but high treatment costs make such strategies prohibitively expensive. Vaccines should play a key role in elimination but their best use alongside treatments is unclear. For three vaccines with different efficacies we used a mathematical model to estimate the additional reduction in HCV prevalence when vaccinating after treatment; and to identify in which settings vaccines could most effectively reduce the number of treatments required to achieve fixed reductions in HCV prevalence among people who inject drugs (PWID). A deterministic model of HCV transmission among PWID was calibrated for settings with 25, 50 and 75 % chronic HCV prevalence among PWID, stratified by high-risk or low-risk PWID. For vaccines with 30, 60 or 90 % efficacies, different rates of treatment and vaccination were introduced. We compared prevalence reductions achieved by vaccinating after treatment to prevent reinfection and vaccinating independently of treatment history in the community; and by allocating treatments and vaccinations to specific risk groups and proportionally across risk groups. Vaccinating after treatment was minimally different to vaccinating independently of treatment history, and allocating treatments and vaccinations to specific risk groups was minimally different to allocating them proportionally across risk groups. Vaccines with 30 or 60 % efficacy provided greater additional prevalence reduction per vaccination in a setting with 75 % chronic HCV prevalence among PWID than a 90 % efficacious vaccine in settings with 25 or 50 % chronic HCV prevalence among PWID. Vaccinating after treatment is an effective and practical method of administration. In settings with high chronic HCV prevalence among PWID, even modest coverage with a low-efficacy vaccine could provide significant additional prevalence reduction beyond treatment alone, and would likely reduce the cost of achieving prevalence reduction targets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 87 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 22%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 28 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2015.
All research outputs
#3,557,400
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,885
of 3,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,429
of 265,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#60
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.