Dataset Information

A cost comparison of introducing and delivering pneumococcal, rotavirus and human papillomavirus vaccines in Rwanda.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Detailed cost evaluations of delivery of new vaccines such as pneumococcal conjugate, human papillomavirus (HPV), and rotavirus vaccines in low and middle-income countries are scarce. This paper differs from others by comparing the costs of introducing multiple vaccines in a single country and then assessing the financial and economic impact at the time and implications for the future. The objective of the analysis was to understand the introduction and delivery cost per dose or per child of the three new vaccines in Rwanda to inform domestic and external financial resource mobilization.

Methods

Start-up, recurrent, and capital costs from a government perspective were collected in 2012. Since pneumococcal conjugate and HPV vaccines had already been introduced, cost data for those vaccines were collected retrospectively while prospective (projected) costing was done for rotavirus vaccine.

Results

The financial unit cost per fully immunized child (or girl for HPV vaccine) of delivering 3 doses of each vaccine (without costs related to vaccine procurement) was $0.37 for rotavirus (RotaTeq(®)) vaccine, $0.54 for pneumococcal (Prevnar(®)) vaccine in pre-filled syringes, and $10.23 for HPV (Gardasil (®)) vaccine. The financial delivery costs of Prevnar(®) and RotaTeq(®) were similar since both were delivered using existing health system infrastructure to deliver infant vaccines at health centers. The total financial cost of delivering Gardasil(®) was higher than those of the two infant vaccines due to greater resource requirements associated with creating a new vaccine delivery system in for a new target population of 12-year-old girls who have not previously been served by the existing routine infant immunization program.

Conclusion

The analysis indicates that service delivery strategies have an important influence on costs of introducing new vaccines and costs per girl reached with HPV vaccine are higher than the other two vaccines because of its delivery strategy. Documented information on financial commitments for new vaccines, particularly from government sources, is a useful input into country policy dialogue on sustainable financing and co-financing of new vaccines, as well as for policy decisions by donors such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

SUBMITTER: Ngabo F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5357722 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A cost comparison of introducing and delivering pneumococcal, rotavirus and human papillomavirus vaccines in Rwanda.

Ngabo Fidèle F Levin Ann A Wang Susan A SA Gatera Maurice M Rugambwa Celse C Kayonga Celestin C Donnen Philippe P Lepage Philippe P Hutubessy Raymond R

Vaccine 20151029 51

<h4>Background</h4>Detailed cost evaluations of delivery of new vaccines such as pneumococcal conjugate, human papillomavirus (HPV), and rotavirus vaccines in low and middle-income countries are scarce. This paper differs from others by comparing the costs of introducing multiple vaccines in a single country and then assessing the financial and economic impact at the time and implications for the future. The objective of the analysis was to understand the introduction and delivery cost per dose ...[more]

PMID: 26519548

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundStimulated by the economic challenges faced by many sub-Saharan African countries and the changes in the rotavirus burden across these countries, this study aimed to inform the decision of health policy makers of eight sub-Saharan countries, who are yet to introduce the rotavirus vaccine as of Dec 31, 2020, on the health economic consequences of the introduction of the vaccine in terms of the costs and benefits.MethodsWe did a cost-benefit analysis using a simulation-based decision-analytic model for children aged younger than 1 year, who were followed up to 259 weeks, in the Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data were collected and analysed between Jan 13, 2020, and Dec 11, 2020. Cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis were done as secondary analyses. Four rotavirus vaccinations (Rotarix, Rotateq, Rotavac, and Rotasiil) were compared with no vaccination. The primary outcome was disability-adjusted life-years averted, converted to monetary terms. The secondary outcomes include rotavirus gastroenteritis averted, and rotavirus vaccine-associated intussusception. The primary economic evaluation measure was the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).FindingsFor the modelling period, Jan 1, 2021, to Dec 31, 2030, we found that the benefits of introducing the rotavirus vaccine outweighed the costs in all eight countries, with Chad and the Central African Republic having the highest BCR of 19·42 and 11·36, respectively. Guinea had the lowest BCR of 3·26 amongst the Gavi-eligible countries. Equatorial Guinea and Gabon had a narrow BCR of 1·86 and 2·06, respectively. Rotarix was the optimal choice for all the Gavi-eligible countries; Rotasiil and Rotavac were the optimal choices for Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, respectively.InterpretationIntroducing the rotavirus vaccine in all eight countries, but with caution in Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, would be worthwhile. With the narrow BCR for Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, cautious, pragmatic, and stringent measures need to be employed to ensure optimal health benefits and cost minimisation of the vaccine introduction. The final decision to introduce the rotavirus vaccine should be preceded by comparing its BCR to the BCRs of other health-care projects.FundingCopenhagen Consensus Center and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundLive oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are less effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Next-generation rotavirus vaccines (NGRVs) may be more effective but require administration by injection or a neonatal oral dose, adding operational complexity. Healthcare providers (HPs) were interviewed to assess rotavirus vaccine preferences and identify delivery issues as part of an NGRV value proposition.ObjectiveDetermine HP vaccine preferences about delivering LORVs compared to injectable (iNGRV) and neonatal oral (oNGRV) NGRVs.Methods64 HPs from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, and Senegal were interviewed following a mixed-method guide centered on three vaccine comparisons: LORV vs. iNGRV; LORV vs. oNGRV; oNGRV vs. iNGRV. HPs reviewed attributes for each vaccine in the comparisons, then indicated and explained their preference. Additional questions elicited views about co-administering iNGRV+LORV for greater public health impact, a possible iNGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine, and delivering neonatal doses.ResultsAlmost all HPs preferred oral vaccine options over iNGRV, with many emphasizing an aversion to additional injections. Despite this strong preference, HPs described challenges delivering oral doses. Preferences for LORV vs. oNGRV were split, marked by disparate views on rotavirus disease epidemiology and the safety, need, and feasibility of delivering neonatal vaccines. Although overwhelmingly enthusiastic about an iNGRV-DTP-containing combination option, several HPs had concerns. HP views were divided on the feasibility of co-administering iNGRV+LORV, citing challenges around logistics and caregiver sensitization.ConclusionOur findings provide valuable insights on delivering NGRVs in routine immunization. Despite opposition to injectables, openness to co-administering LORV+iNGRV to improve efficacy suggests future HP support of iNGRV if adequately informed of its advantages. Rationales for LORV vs. oNGRV underscore needs for training on rotavirus epidemiology and stronger service integration. Expressed challenges delivering existing LORVs merit further examination and indicate need for improved delivery.

Project description:IntroductionIn 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) revised recommendations for adult pneumococcal vaccination to include a sequential regimen of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for certain high-risk adults with immunocompromising conditions. This study, from a payer perspective, examined: (1) the cost-effectiveness of the new 2012 ACIP vaccine policy recommendation relative to the 1997 ACIP recommendation; (2) the cost-effectiveness of potential future pneumococcal vaccination policies; and (3) key assumptions that influence study results.MethodsA static cohort model that incorporated costs, health outcomes, and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) losses associated with invasive pneumococcal disease and non-bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBPP) was developed to evaluate seven pneumococcal vaccination strategies for a 50-year-old adult cohort over a 50-year period using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsFor objective 1, the 2012 ACIP recommendation is the more economically efficient strategy (ICER was $25,841 per QALY gained vs. no vaccination). For objective 2, the most efficient vaccination policy would be to maintain the 2012 recommendation for PPSV23 for healthy and immunocompetent adults with comorbidities, and to modify the recommendation for adults with immunocompromising conditions by replacing PPSV23 with a sequential regimen of PCV13 and PPSV23 at age 65 (ICER was $23,416 per QALY gained vs. no vaccination). For objective 3, cost-effectiveness ratios for alternative pneumococcal vaccine policies were highly influenced by assumptions used for vaccine effectiveness against NBPP and accounting for the herd protection effects of pediatric PCV13 vaccination on adult pneumococcal disease.ConclusionModifying the 2012 recommendation to include an additional dose of PCV13 at age 65, followed by PPSV23, for adults with immunocompromising conditions appears to be a cost-effective vaccine policy. Given the uncertainty in the available data and the absence of key influential data, comprehensive sensitivity analyses should be conducted by policy-makers when evaluating new adult pneumococcal vaccine strategies.

Dataset Information

A cost comparison of introducing and delivering pneumococcal, rotavirus and human papillomavirus vaccines in Rwanda.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A cost comparison of introducing and delivering pneumococcal, rotavirus and human papillomavirus vaccines in Rwanda.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets