METHODS: Following ethical approval, we conducted hospital-based dengue surveillance for one year in three referral hospitals. Suspected cases aged 9-25 years underwent dengue virological confirmation by RT-PCR and/or NS1 Ag ELISA at a central laboratory. Two age- and geography-matched hospitalized non-dengue case-controls were recruited for a traditional CC study. Suspected cases testing negative were test-negative controls. Socio-demographic, risk factor and routine laboratory data were collected. Logistic regression models were used to estimate associations between confirmed dengue and risk factors.

RESULTS: We recruited 327 subjects; 155 were suspected of dengue. The planned sample size was not met. 124 (80%) of suspected cases were dengue-confirmed; seven were assessed as severe. Three had missing RT-PCR results; the study recruited 28 test-negative controls. Only 172 matched controls could be recruited; 90 cases were matched with ≥1 controls. Characteristics of cases and controls were mostly similar. By CC design, two variables were significant risk factors for hospitalized dengue: recent household dengue contact (OR: 54, 95% CI: 7.3-397) and recent neighbourhood insecticidal fogging (OR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3-3.6). In the TN design, no risk factors were identified. In comparison with gold-standard diagnostics, routine tests performed poorly.

METHODS: This cross-sectional nationwide study conducted in 2018 recruited convenience sample of 289 parents with children up to age 12 at public areas. Parents were asked to rate the risk level from 1 (no risk) to 5 (extremely high risk) by looking at photographs of an adult smoking in the presence of a child in 8 different situations. The implementation of smoking restriction rules was assessed. Mean scores were calculated with higher scores representing higher risk perception of SHS to child's health. Linear regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with the level of parental risk perception of SHS exposure to their children's health.

METHODS: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness and impact of dengue vaccination in Malaysia from both provider and societal perspectives using a dynamic transmission mathematical model. The model incorporated sensitivity analyses, Malaysia-specific data, evidence from recent phase III studies and pooled efficacy and long-term safety data to refine the estimates from previous published studies. Unit costs were valued in $US, year 2013 values.

RESULTS: Six vaccination programmes employing a three-dose schedule were identified as the most likely programmes to be implemented. In all programmes, vaccination produced positive benefits expressed as reductions in dengue cases, dengue-related deaths, life-years lost, disability-adjusted life-years and dengue treatment costs. Instead of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), we evaluated the cost effectiveness of the programmes by calculating the threshold prices for a highly cost-effective strategy [ICER <1 × gross domestic product (GDP) per capita] and a cost-effective strategy (ICER between 1 and 3 × GDP per capita). We found that vaccination may be cost effective up to a price of $US32.39 for programme 6 (highly cost effective up to $US14.15) and up to a price of $US100.59 for programme 1 (highly cost effective up to $US47.96) from the provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis is sensitive to under-reporting, vaccine protection duration and model time horizon.