Costs of delivering human papillomavirus vaccination using a one- or two-dose strategy in Tanzania

ObjectiveAs part of the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study of Two HPV Vaccines in Tanzanian Girls (DoRIS; NCT02834637), the current study is one of the first to evaluate the financial and economic costs of the national rollout of an HPV vaccination program in school-aged girls in sub-Saharan Africa and the potential costs associated with a single dose HPV vaccine program, given recent evidence suggesting that a single dose may be as efficacious as a two-dose regimen.MethodsThe World Health Organization’s (WHO) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) micro-costing tool was used to estimate the total financial and economic costs of the national vaccination program from the perspective of the Tanzanian government. Cost data were collected in 2019 via surveys, workshops, and interviews with local stakeholders for vaccines and injection supplies, microplanning, training, sensitization, service delivery, supervision, and cold chain. The cost per two-dose and one-dose fully immunized girl (FIG) was calculated.ResultsThe total financial and economic costs were US$10,117,455 and US$45,683,204, respectively, at a financial cost of $5.17 per two-dose FIG, and an economic cost of $23.34 per FIG. Vaccine and vaccine-related costs comprised the largest proportion of costs, followed by service delivery. In a one-dose scenario, the cost per FIG reduced to $2.51 (financial) and $12.18 (economic), with the largest reductions in vaccine and injection supply costs, and service delivery.ConclusionsThe overall cost of Tanzania’s HPV vaccination program was lower per vaccinee than costs estimated from previous demonstration projects in the region, especially in a single-dose scenario. Given the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization’s recent recommendation to update dosing schedules to either one or two doses of the HPV vaccine, these data provide important baseline data for Tanzania and may serve as a guide for improving coverage going forward. The findings may also aid in the prioritization of funding for countries that have not yet added HPV vaccines to their routine immunizations.     

Cost of introducing and delivering RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine within the malaria vaccine implementation program

BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommended widespread use of the RTS,S/AS01 (RTS,S) malaria vaccine among children residing in regions of moderate to high malaria transmission. This recommendation is informed by RTS,S evidence, including findings from the pilot rollout of the vaccine in Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi. This study estimates the incremental costs of introducing and delivering the malaria vaccine within routine immunization programs in the context of malaria vaccine pilot introduction, to help inform decision-making.MethodsAn activity-based, retrospective costing was conducted from the governments’ perspective. Vaccine introduction and delivery costs supported by the donors during the pilot introduction were attributed as costs to the governments under routine implementation. Detailed resource use data were extracted from the pilot program expenditure and activity reports for 2019–2021. Primary data from representative health facilities were collected to inform recurrent operational and service delivery costs. Costs were categorized as introduction or recurrent costs. Both financial and economic costs were estimated and reported in 2020 USD. The cost of donated vaccine doses was evaluated at $2, $5 and $10 per dose and included in the economic cost estimates. Financial costs include the procurement add on costs for the donated vaccines and immunization supplies, along with other direct expenses.FindingsAt a vaccine price of $5 per dose, the incremental cost per dose administered across countries ranges from $2.30 to $3.01 (financial), and $8.28 to $10.29 (economic). The non-vaccine cost of delivery ranges between $1.04 and $2.46 (financial) and $1.52 and $4.62 (economic), by country. Considering only recurrent costs, the non-vaccine cost of delivery per dose ranges between $0.29 and $0.89 (financial) and $0.59 and $2.29 (economic), by country. Introduction costs constitute between 33% and 71% of total financial costs. Commodity and procurement add-on costs are the main cost drivers of total cost across countries. Incremental resource needs for implementation are dependent on country’s baseline immunization program capacity constraints.InterpretationThe financial costs of introducing RTS,S are comparable with costs of introducing other new vaccines. Country resource requirements for malaria vaccine introduction are most influenced by vaccine price and potential donor funding for vaccine purchases and introduction support.     

Costs of Immunization Programs for 10 Vaccines in 94 Low- and Middle-Income Countries From 2011 to 2030

ObjectivesUnderstanding the level of investment needed for the 2021-2030 decade is important as the global community faces the next strategic period for vaccines and immunization programs. To assist with this goal, we estimated the aggregate costs of immunization programs for ten vaccines in 94 low- and middle-income countries from 2011 to 2030.MethodWe calculated vaccine, immunization delivery and stockpile costs for 94 low- and middle-income countries leveraging the latest available data sources. We conducted scenario analyses to vary assumptions about the relationship between delivery cost and coverage as well as vaccine prices for fully self-financing countries.ResultsThe total aggregate cost of immunization programs in 94 countries for 10 vaccines from 2011 to 2030 is $70.8 billion (confidence interval: $56.6-$93.3) under the base case scenario and $84.1 billion ($72.8-$102.7) under an incremental delivery cost scenario, with an increasing trend over two decades. The relative proportion of vaccine and delivery costs for pneumococcal conjugate, human papillomavirus, and rotavirus vaccines increase as more countries introduce these vaccines. Nine countries in accelerated transition phase bear the highest burden of the costs in the next decade, and uncertainty with vaccine prices for the 17 fully self-financing countries could lead to total costs that are 1.3-13.1 times higher than the base case scenario.ConclusionResource mobilization efforts at the global and country levels will be needed to reach the level of investment needed for the coming decade. Global-level initiatives and targeted strategies for transitioning countries will help ensure the sustainability of immunization programs.     

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of live oral pentavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine introduction in Ghana

Background

Globally, rotavirus gastroenteritis is the most common identifiable cause of severe diarrhea in children under 5. Recently introduced rotavirus vaccines from Merck &; Co. and GlaxoSmithKline have the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives. Efficacy results in Ghana suggest Merck &; Co.’s live oral pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RotaTeq^®) prevents 65.0% of severe gastroenteritis due to rotavirus infection in children under 5. The announcement by Merck and GSK to make their rotavirus vaccines available for developing nations at reduced prices provides Ghana with the opportunity to introduce rotavirus vaccines into the national immunization program after investigation of the medical, economic and political implications.

Methods

We estimated the average costs of treating children with diarrhea in the Ashanti region of Ghana as inpatients and outpatients. Using these results, data from rotavirus surveillance studies, and recent rotavirus vaccine efficacy evaluation, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of introducing RotaTeq in Ghana.

Results

Based on our prospective calculations, we estimated an average inpatient and outpatient costs of $233.97 and $17.09, respectively, for treating childhood diarrhea. Using the 2003 birth cohort, RotaTeq introduction could save 1554 lives and avert 93,109 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) annually. At a market price of $5 per dose, introducing RotaTeq would have a base-case cost of $62.26 per DALY averted, at a market price of $3.50 per dose, a base-case cost of $39.59 per DALY averted and at market cost of $1 per dose, a base-case cost of $1.81 per DALY averted. All three values are below the 2009 Ghana per capita GDP. Thus, RotaTeq introduction into Ghana will be very cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses suggest these results are robust.

Conclusions

RotaTeq vaccination for children under five in Ghana would be a highly cost-effective public health intervention. Ghanaian health officials should seek GAVI funding and evaluate how to maximize RotaTeq access.     

Impact of the introduction of rotavirus vaccine on the timeliness of other scheduled vaccines: The Australian experience

Strict age limits for receipt of rotavirus vaccines and simultaneous use of vaccines requiring two (Rotarix^®) and three (RotaTeq^®) doses in Australia may impact on coverage and timeliness of other vaccines in the infant schedule. Using data from the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR), coverage and timeliness of rotavirus vaccines and changes in timeliness of other infant vaccines following rotavirus vaccine introduction was examined, with particular emphasis on Indigenous infants in whom coverage is less optimal. Final dose rotavirus coverage reached 83% within 21 months of program commencement but remained 7% lower than other vaccines due in infancy. Coverage was 11–17% lower in Indigenous infants. Adherence to the first dose upper age limits for rotavirus vaccine was high with >97% of children vaccinated by the recommended age, but for subsequent rotavirus doses, receipt beyond the upper age limits was more common, especially in Indigenous children. Following rotavirus vaccine introduction, there were improvements in timeliness of receipt of all doses of DTPa-containing and 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. High population coverage can be attained with rotavirus vaccines, even with adherence to strict upper age restrictions for vaccine dose administration. Rotavirus vaccine introduction appears to have impacted upon the timeliness of other concomitantly scheduled vaccines. These factors should be considered when rotavirus programs are introduced.     

Re-evaluating the cost and cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Bangladesh,Ghana, and Malawi: A comparison of three rotavirus vaccines

IntroductionDiarrhea is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and rotavirus accounts for many of these deaths. As of August 2018, 96 countries have introduced rotavirus vaccines into their immunization programs. Two rotavirus vaccines, Rotarix® and RotaTeq®, have been WHO-prequalified since 2009, with Rotarix® being the preferred product of most Gavi-supported countries. ROTAVAC® and ROTASIIL® have both been prequalified recently.Materials and methodsWe reevaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Bangladesh, Ghana, and Malawi and compared Rotarix®, ROTAVAC®, and ROTASIIL® in each country. For consistency with previously published analyses in these countries, we used the same Excel-based cohort model and much of the same data as the original analyses. We varied the expected price (with and without Gavi subsidy), wastage, and incremental health system costs associated with each vaccine. We assumed the same efficacy and waning assumptions following administration of two or three doses for the respective product.ResultsThe discounted cost per DALY averted compared to no vaccination ranged from 0.3 to 1.3 times GNI per capita for each vaccine. With the Gavi subsidy, the average cost-effectiveness ratios were below 0.3 times GNI per capita in all three countries. Though critical empirical cost data are not yet available, Rotarix® is the least costly and most cost-effective product in the countries examined in this modelling study. However, small decreases in the incremental health system cost for other products could result in cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes that match or surpass those of Rotarix®.ConclusionCountries may wish to consider new rotavirus vaccines entering the market. Countries should carefully examine multiple product attributes including price and the incremental health system costs associated with each vaccine. These costs will vary by country and may be a defining factor in determining the least costly and most cost-effective product for the population.     

Cost-benefit analysis of rotavirus vaccine included in the national immunization program in China

BackgroundGlobally, rotavirus is a leading cause of severe acute gastroenteritis among children aged under 5 years and has a significant economic cost. Currently, rotavirus vaccines are only included in the private market in China. This study aimed to assess the cost-benefit of including a three-dose rotavirus vaccine in China’s National Immunization Program (NIP).MethodsA decision tree Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-benefit of universal immunization with three doses of rotavirus vaccine for a 2019 birth cohort of Chinese children. Costs of the universal vaccination program included vaccine price, vaccine wastage, vaccine administration, and indirect costs. All costs were discounted at 3 % per year and converted from 2019 Chinese Yuan to 2019 USD using the 2019 exchange rate.ResultsFor the 2019 birth cohort of Chinese infants, inclusion of RotaTeq in NIP was estimated to prevent 5,677,911 cases of rotavirus infection, with net savings of $1.1 billion in total societal costs. A cost of $17.55 per vaccine dose was the threshold at which inclusion of rotavirus vaccine in NIP would be cost-saving.ConclusionsIntroducing rotavirus vaccine into the China NIP would have significant costs from a societal perspective at the current private market price.     

Cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Mozambique

IntroductionRotavirus is one of the most common cause of severe gastroenteritis in children, with the largest mortality burden in low- and middle-income countries. To prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis, Mozambique introduced ROTARIX® vaccine in 2015, however, its cost-effectiveness has never been established in the country. In 2018, additional vaccines became available globally. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of the recently introduced ROTARIX in Mozambique and compares the cost-effectiveness of ROTARIX®, ROTAVAC®, and ROTASIIL® to inform future use.MethodsWe used a decision-support model to calculate the potential cost-effectiveness of vaccination with ROTARIX compared to no vaccination over a five-year period (2016–2020) and to compare the cost-effectiveness of ROTARIX, ROTAVAC, and ROTASIIL to no vaccination and to each other over a ten-year period (2021–2030). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from a government perspective. We assessed uncertainty through sensitivity analyses.ResultsFrom 2016 to 2020, we estimate the vaccine program with ROTARIX cost US$12.3 million, prevented 4,628 deaths, and averted US$3.1 million in healthcare costs. The cost per DALY averted was US$70. From 2021 to 2030, we estimate all three vaccines could prevent 9,000 deaths and avert US$7.8 million in healthcare costs. With Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (Gavi) support, ROTARIX would have the lowest vaccine program cost (US$31 million) and 98 % probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.5x GDP per capita. Without Gavi support, ROTASIIL would have the lowest vaccine program cost (US$75.8 million) and 30 % probability of being cost-effective at the same threshold.ConclusionROTARIX vaccination had a substantial public health impact in Mozambique between 2016 and 2020. ROTARIX is currently estimated to be the most cost-effective product, but the choice of vaccine should be re-evaluated as more evidence emerges on the price, incremental delivery cost, wastage, and impact associated with each of the different rotavirus vaccines.     

Diarrhea hospitalization costs among children <5 years old in Madagascar

BackgroundFollowing a recommendation by the World Health Organization, Madagascar introduced rotavirus vaccine in 2014. Though national rotavirus vaccine coverage has remained <80%, rotavirus hospitalizations declined by 78%. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, has provided financial support for rotavirus vaccine, however the Malagasy government has increasing responsibility for the financial cost.MethodsIn this evaluation, we describe the direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect cost of illness due to diarrhea among children <5 years old at a public pediatric referral hospital. A 3-part structured questionnaire was administered during and following the hospitalization and the child’s hospital record was reviewed.ResultsIn total, 96 children were included in this analysis. The median total cost of the illness was $156.00 (IQR: 104.00, 210.86) and the median direct medical cost was $107.22. Service delivery costs represented a median of 44% of the inpatient costs; medications and diagnostic tests represented a median of 28% and 20% of the total costs of the hospitalization, respectively. The median percentage of the total illness costs paid by the household was 67%. Among households with income of <$61/month, the median costs of the illness paid by the household were $78.55, representing a median of 168% of the household’s monthly expenses. Among households earning >$303/month, the median costs paid by the household were $147.30, representing a median of 53% of the household’s monthly expenses. Among all household income levels, caregivers commonly paid these bills from savings, borrowed money, and donations.ConclusionsOur findings will be useful in assessing the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine by decisionmakers. These results may also help hospital administrators and healthcare providers better understand the financial constraints of families.     

Rotavirus vaccine effectiveness in Hong Kong children

BackgroundRotavirus is a common infectious cause of childhood hospitalisation in Hong Kong. Rotavirus vaccines have been used in the private sector since licensure in 2006 but have not been incorporated in the government’s universal Childhood Immunisation Programme. This study aimed to evaluate rotavirus vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation.MethodsThis case-control study was conducted in the 2014/2015 rotavirus season in six public hospitals. Hospitalised acute gastroenteritis patients meeting inclusion criteria were recruited and copies of their immunisation records were collected. Case-patients were defined as enrolled subjects with stool specimens obtained in the first 48 h of hospitalisation that tested positive for rotavirus, whereas control-patients were those with stool specimens obtained in the first 48 h of hospitalisation testing negative for rotavirus. Vaccine effectiveness for administration of at least one dose of either Rotarix^® (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) or RotaTeq^® (Merck Research Laboratories) was calculated as 1 minus the odds ratio for rotavirus vaccination history for case-patients versus control-patients.ResultsAmong the 525 eligible subjects recruited, immunisation records were seen in 404 (77%) subjects. 31% (162/525 and 126/404) tested positive for rotavirus. In the 404 subjects assessed for vaccine effectiveness, 2.4% and 24% received at least 1 dose of either rotavirus vaccine in case- and control-patients respectively. The unmatched vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation for administration of at least one dose of either rotavirus vaccines was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75%, 98%). The matched analyses by age only and both age and admission date showed 96% (95% CI: 72%, 100%) and 89% (95% CI: 51%, 97%) protection against rotavirus hospitalisation respectively.ConclusionsRotavirus vaccine is highly effective in preventing hospitalisation from rotavirus disease in young Hong Kong children.     

Routine immunization services costs and financing in China, 2015

ObjectiveTo estimate the costs of routine immunization (RI) services in China in 2015, to provide objective data relevant to investment in the Expanded Program on Immunization, and to contribute to global data on costing and financing of RI.MethodsThe study was conducted between January and March 2016. We selected 276 villages, 138 townships, 46 counties, and 40 prefectures from 15 provinces as investigation sites at random, stratified by eastern, middle, and western regions. Direct cost items included vaccines, personnel, cold chain, surveillance, communication, training, and supervision at the national, provincial, prefecture, county, township, and village levels. We obtained financial data from governmental and external sources. Indirect costs of RI included parents’ transportation costs and productivity lost due to taking their children for vaccination.ResultsTotal direct costs were $92.42 for each child fully immunized ($4.20/dose), which equates to $1529.55 million per birth cohort. RI costs were higher in the eastern region than in the western region, and higher than that of the central region. Vaccination coverage was positively associated with direct routine immunization costs. The cost of the recommended vaccines was $19.08/child and vaccine only accounted for 20.64% of total costs. Operational cost, including surveillance, communication, training and supervision, was $217.31/child, accounting for 14.21% of total cost. The indirect cost per child was $72.86; the total indirect cost was $1205.83 million for the birth cohort. Government investment in RI accounted for about 70% of total costs. Revenue from sales of private-sector vaccine supported the remaining 30% of RI costs.ConclusionsWhile government financing has increased, some operating costs continue to be provided from revenue generated by sales of Category 2 (private-sector) vaccines to families. China could benefit from bringing new and underutilized vaccines into the EPI system based on evidence that includes routine immunization vaccine and operations costs.     

Economic impact of thermostable vaccines

BackgroundWhile our previous work has shown that replacing existing vaccines with thermostable vaccines can relieve bottlenecks in vaccine supply chains and thus increase vaccine availability, the question remains whether this benefit would outweigh the additional cost of thermostable formulations.MethodsUsing HERMES simulation models of the vaccine supply chains for the Republic of Benin, the state of Bihar (India), and Niger, we simulated replacing different existing vaccines with thermostable formulations and determined the resulting clinical and economic impact. Costs measured included the costs of vaccines, logistics, and disease outcomes averted.ResultsReplacing a particular vaccine with a thermostable version yielded cost savings in many cases even when charging a price premium (two or three times the current vaccine price). For example, replacing the current pentavalent vaccine with a thermostable version without increasing the vaccine price saved from $366 to $10,945 per 100 members of the vaccine’s target population. Doubling the vaccine price still resulted in cost savings that ranged from $300 to $10,706, and tripling the vaccine price resulted in cost savings from $234 to $10,468. As another example, a thermostable rotavirus vaccine (RV) at its current (year) price saved between $131 and $1065. Doubling and tripling the thermostable rotavirus price resulted in cost savings ranging from $102 to $936 and $73 to $808, respectively. Switching to thermostable formulations was highly cost-effective or cost-effective in most scenarios explored.ConclusionMedical cost and productivity savings could outweigh even significant price premiums charged for thermostable formulations of vaccines, providing support for their use.     

Cost effectiveness evaluation of a rotavirus vaccination program in Argentina

BackgroundRotavirus diarrhea is one of the most important vaccine-preventable causes of severe diarrhea in children worldwide. There are two live-attenuated virus vaccines licensed, Rotarix® (RV1) a monovalent vaccine by GlaxoSmithKline and a pentavalent vaccine, RotaTeq® (RV5), by Merck & Co., with similar results. This study aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the utilization of RV1 compared with RV5 in Argentina.MethodsA deterministic Markov model based on the lifetime follow up of a static cohort was used. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) as a measure of results, the perspective of the health care system and a 5% discount rate for health benefits and costs has been used. A review of the literature to obtain epidemiologic and resources utilization of rotavirus diarrhea was performed. The sources used to estimate epidemiologic parameters were the National Health Surveillance System, the national mortality statistics and national database of hospital discharges records. Costs were obtained from different health subsectors and are expressed in local currency.ResultsBoth vaccination alternatives were less costly and more effective than the strategy without vaccination (total costs $ 69,700,645 and 2575 total QALYs lost). When comparing RV1 vs. RV5, RV1 was less expensive ($ 60,174,508 vs. $ 67,545,991 total costs) and more effective (1105 vs. 1213 total QALYs lost) than RV5, RV1 being therefore a dominating strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed results to be robust with a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a WTP threshold of 1 GDP per capita when comparing the RV1 vs. no vaccination.ConclusionBoth RV1 and RV5 schedules dominate the no vaccination strategy and RV5 was dominated by RV1. This information is a valuable input regarding the incorporation of this kind of vaccines into the national vaccination programs.     

Costs of introducing pneumococcal,rotavirus and a second dose of measles vaccine into the Zambian immunisation programme: Are expansions sustainable?

BackgroundIntroduction of new vaccines in low- and lower middle-income countries has accelerated since Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance was established in 2000. This study sought to (i) estimate the costs of introducing pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, rotavirus vaccine and a second dose of measles vaccine in Zambia; and (ii) assess affordability of the new vaccines in relation to Gavi’s co-financing and eligibility policies.MethodsData on ‘one-time’ costs of cold storage expansions, training and social mobilisation were collected from the government and development partners. A detailed economic cost study of routine immunisation based on a representative sample of 51 health facilities provided information on labour and vaccine transport costs. Gavi co-financing payments and immunisation programme costs were projected until 2022 when Zambia is expected to transition from Gavi support. The ability of Zambia to self-finance both new and traditional vaccines was assessed by comparing these with projected government health expenditures.Results‘One-time’ costs of introducing the three vaccines amounted to US$ 0.28 per capita. The new vaccines increased annual immunisation programme costs by 38%, resulting in economic cost per fully immunised child of US$ 102. Co-financing payments on average increased by 10% during 2008–2017, but must increase 49% annually between 2017 and 2022. In 2014, the government spent approximately 6% of its health expenditures on immunisation. Assuming no real budget increases, immunisation would account for around 10% in 2022. Vaccines represented 1% of government, non-personnel expenditures for health in 2014, and would be 6% in 2022, assuming no real budget increases.ConclusionWhile the introduction of new vaccines is justified by expected positive health impacts, long-term affordability will be challenging in light of the current economic climate in Zambia. The government needs to both allocate more resources to the health sector and seek efficiency gains within service provision.     

A review of the costs of delivering maternal immunisation during pregnancy

BackgroundRoutine maternal immunisation against influenza and pertussis are recommended by the WHO to protect mother and child, and new vaccines are under development. Introducing maternal vaccines into national programmes requires an understanding of vaccine delivery costs – particularly in low resource settings.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, Econlit, and Global Health for studies reporting costs of delivering vaccination during pregnancy but excluded studies that did not separate the vaccine purchase price. Extracted costs were inflated and converted to 2018 US dollars.ResultsSixteen studies were included, of which two used primary data to estimate vaccine delivery costs. Costs per dose ranged from $0.55 to $0.64 in low-income countries, from $1.25 to $6.55 for middle-income countries, and from $5.76 to $39.87 in high-income countries.ConclusionsMore research is needed on the costs of delivering maternal immunisation during pregnancy, and of integrating vaccine delivery into existing programmes of antenatal care especially in low and middle-income countries.     

Projected health benefits and costs of pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccination in Uganda

We determined impact and cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccination programs among children < 5 years of age in Uganda from the public health system perspective. Disease-specific models compared the disease burden and cost with and without a vaccination program. If introduced, pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccine programs will save 10,796 and 5265 lives, respectively, prevent 94,071 Streptococcus pneumoniae and 94,729 rotavirus cases in children < 5 years, and save 3886 and 996 million Ugandan shillings ($2.3 and $0.6 million US dollars), respectively, in direct medical costs annually. At the GAVI price ($0.15/dose), pneumococcal vaccine will be cost-saving and rotavirus vaccine highly cost-effective.     

Is it cost-effective to introduce rotavirus vaccination in the Dutch national immunization program?

This study assessed whether the inclusion of two rotavirus (RV) vaccines in the Dutch national immunization programme is cost-effective. Costs and outcomes in unvaccinated and vaccinated populations are compared for a time period of 20 years. In the baseline, assuming competitive market forces in relation to vaccine costs, Rotarix^® is more cost-effective than RotaTeq^®, resulting in a cost-utility ratio (CUR) of € 53,000 per DALY (third payer perspective) and € 49,000 per DALY (societal perspective), but both considered as being not cost-effective. Vaccine-related costs, annual epidemic-size, and indirect protection are the major factors that determine cost-effectiveness of RV vaccination.     

Association between mixed rotavirus vaccination types of infants and rotavirus acute gastroenteritis

IntroductionRotavirus remains the leading cause of severe diarrhea in children under 5 years worldwide. In the US, Rotarix^® (RV1) and RotaTeq^® (RV5), have been associated with reductions in and severity of rotavirus disease. Studies have evaluated the impact of RV1 or RV5 but little is known about the impact of incomplete or mixed vaccination upon vaccine effectiveness.MethodsCase control study to examine association of combined RV1 and RV5 and rotavirus acute gastroenteritis, factoring severity of diarrheal disease. Children born after March 1, 2009 with acute gastroenteritis from three pediatric hospitals in Atlanta, Georgia were approached for enrollment. Survey was administered, stool specimen was collected, and vaccination records were obtained.Results891 of 1127 children with acute gastroenteritis were enrolled. Stool specimens were collected from 708 for rotavirus testing; 215 stool samples tested positively for rotavirus. Children >12 months of age were more likely to have rotavirus. Children categorized with Vesikari score of >11 were almost twice as likely to be rotavirus positive. Prior rotavirus vaccination decreased the mean Vesikari score, p < 0.0001. Children with complete single type vaccination were protected against rotavirus (OR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.14–0.31, p < 0.0001).ConclusionComplete rotavirus vaccination with a single vaccine type resulted in protection against rotavirus diarrhea and decrease in severity of rotavirus gastroenteritis. Incomplete rotavirus vaccination either with a single vaccine or mixed vaccination types also provided some protection.     

Delivery cost of human papillomavirus vaccination of young adolescent girls in Peru,Uganda and Viet Nam

Objective

To estimate the incremental delivery cost of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of young adolescent girls in Peru, Uganda and Viet Nam.

Methods

Data were collected from a sample of facilities that participated in five demonstration projects for HPV vaccine delivery: school-based delivery was used in Peru, Uganda and Viet Nam; health-centre-based delivery was also used in Viet Nam; and integrated delivery, which involved existing health services, was also used in Uganda. Microcosting methods were used to guide data collection on the use of resources (i.e. staff, supplies and equipment) and data were obtained from government, demonstration project and health centre administrative records. Delivery costs were expressed in 2009 United States dollars (US$). Exclusively project-related expenses and the cost of the vaccine were excluded.

Findings

The economic delivery cost per vaccine dose ranged from US$ 1.44 for integrated outreach in Uganda to US$ 3.88 for school-based delivery in Peru. In Viet Nam, the lowest cost per dose was US$ 1.92 for health-centre-based delivery. Cost profiles revealed that, in general, the largest contributing factors were project start-up costs and recurrent personnel costs. The delivery cost of HPV vaccine was higher than published costs for traditional vaccines recommended by the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI).

Conclusion

The cost of delivering HPV vaccine to young adolescent girls in Peru, Uganda and Viet Nam was higher than that for vaccines currently in the EPI schedule. The cost per vaccine dose was lower when delivery was integrated into existing health services.