Dataset Information

Evaluating the potential economic and health impact of rotavirus vaccination in 63 middle-income countries not eligible for Gavi funding: a modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Middle-income countries (MICs) that are not eligible for funding from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, have been slow to adopt rotavirus vaccines. Few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness and benefit-risk of rotavirus vaccination in these settings. We aimed to assess the potential economic and health impact of rotavirus vaccination in 63 MICs not eligible for funding from Gavi.

Methods

In this modelling study, we estimated the cost-effectiveness and benefit-risk of rotavirus vaccination in 63 MICs not eligible to Gavi funding. We used an Excel-based proportionate outcomes model with a finely disaggregated age structure to estimate the number of rotavirus gastroenteritis cases, clinic visits, hospitalisations, and deaths averted by vaccination in children younger than 5 years over a 10-year period. We calculated cost-effectiveness ratios (costs per disability-adjusted life-years averted compared with no vaccination) and benefit-risk ratios (number of hospitalisations due to rotavirus gastroenteritis averted per excess hospitalisations due to intussusception). We evaluated three alternative vaccines available globally (Rotarix, Rotavac, and Rotasiil) and used information from vaccine manufacturers regarding anticipated vaccine prices. We ran deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty analyses.

Findings

Over the period 2020-29, rotavirus vaccines could avert 77 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 51-103) cases of rotavirus gastroenteritis and 21 million (12-36) clinic visits, 3 million (1·4-5·6) hospitalisations, and 37 900 (25 900-55 900) deaths due to rotavirus gastroenteritis in 63 MICs not eligible for Gavi support. From a government perspective, rotavirus vaccination would be cost-effective in 48 (77%) of 62 MICs considered. The benefit-risk ratio for hospitalisations prevented versus those potentially caused by vaccination exceeded 250:1 in all countries.

Interpretation

In most MICs not eligible for Gavi funding, rotavirus vaccination has high probability to be cost-effective with a favourable benefit-risk profile. Policy makers should consider this new evidence when making or revisiting decisions on the use of rotavirus vaccines in their respective countries.

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

SUBMITTER: Debellut F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8205857 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRotavirus infection is responsible for about 500,000 deaths annually, and the disease burden is disproportionately borne by children in low-income countries. Recently the World Health Organization (WHO) has released a global recommendation that all countries include infant rotavirus vaccination in their national immunization programs. Our objective was to provide information on the expected health, economic and financial consequences of rotavirus vaccines in the 72 GAVI support-eligible countries.MethodsWe synthesized population-level data from various sources (primarily from global-level databases) for the 72 countries eligible for the support by the GAVI Alliance (GAVI-eligible countries) in order to estimate the health and economic impact associated with rotavirus vaccination programs. The primary outcome measure was incremental cost (in 2005 international dollars [I$]) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. We also projected the expected reduction in rotavirus disease burden and financial resources required associated with a variety of scale-up scenarios.ResultsUnder the base-case assumptions (70% coverage), vaccinating one single birth cohort would prevent about 55% of rotavirus associated deaths in the 72 GAVI-eligible countries. Assuming I$25 per vaccinated child (approximately $5 per dose), the number of countries with the incremental cost per DALY averted less than I$200 was 47. Using the WHO's cost-effectiveness threshold based on per capita GDP, the vaccines were considered cost-effective in 68 of the 72 countries (approximately 94%). A 10-year routine rotavirus vaccination would prevent 0.9-2.8 million rotavirus associated deaths among children under age 5 in the poorest parts of the world, depending on vaccine scale-up scenarios. Over the same intervention period, rotavirus vaccination programs would also prevent 4.5-13.3 million estimated cases of hospitalization and 41-107 million cases of outpatient clinic visits in the same population.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that rotavirus vaccination would be considered a worthwhile investment for improving general development as well as childhood health level in most low-income countries, with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile even under a vaccine price ($1.5-$5.0 per dose) higher than those of traditional childhood vaccines.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have found rotavirus vaccination to be highly cost-effective in low-income countries. However, updated evidence is now available for several inputs (ie, rotavirus disease mortality rates, rotavirus age distributions, vaccine timeliness, and vaccine efficacy by duration of follow-up), new rotavirus vaccines have entered the market, vaccine prices have decreased, and cost-effectiveness thresholds have been re-examined. We aimed to provide updated cost-effectiveness estimates to inform national decisions about the new introduction and current use of rotavirus vaccines in Gavi countries.MethodsWe calculated the potential costs and effects of rotavirus vaccination for ten successive birth cohorts in 73 countries previously and currently eligible for Gavi support, compared with no vaccination. We used a deterministic cohort model to calculate numbers of rotavirus gastroenteritis cases, outpatient visits, hospitalisations, and deaths between birth and 5 years, with and without rotavirus vaccination. We calculated treatment costs from the government and societal perspectives. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (discounted US$ per disability-adjusted life-year averted). Country-specific model input parameters were based on the scientific literature, published meta-analyses, and international databases. We ran deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty analyses.FindingsOver the period 2018-27, rotavirus vaccination has the potential to prevent nearly 600 000 deaths in Gavi countries. Averted outpatient visits and hospitalisations could lead to treatment savings of approximately $484·1 million from the government perspective and $878·0 million from the societal perspective. The discounted dollars per disability-adjusted life-year averted has a very high probability (>90%) of being less than 0·5 times the gross domestic product per capita in 54 countries, and less than 1·0 times gross domestic product per capita in 63 countries.InterpretationRotavirus vaccination continues to represent good value for money across most Gavi countries despite lower rotavirus mortality estimates and more stringent willingness-to-pay thresholds.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundTens of thousands of people die from dog-mediated rabies annually. Deaths can be prevented through post-exposure prophylaxis for people who have been bitten, and the disease eliminated through dog vaccination. Current post-exposure prophylaxis use saves many lives, but availability remains poor in many rabies-endemic countries due to high costs, poor access, and supply.MethodsWe developed epidemiological and economic models to investigate the effect of an investment in post-exposure prophylaxis by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. We modelled post-exposure prophylaxis use according to the status quo, with improved access using WHO-recommended intradermal vaccination, with and without rabies immunoglobulin, and with and without dog vaccination. We took the health provider perspective, including only direct costs.FindingsWe predict more than 1 million deaths will occur in the 67 rabies-endemic countries considered from 2020 to 2035, under the status quo. Current post-exposure prophylaxis use prevents approximately 56 000 deaths annually. Expanded access to, and free provision of, post-exposure prophylaxis would prevent an additional 489 000 deaths between 2020 and 2035. Under this switch to efficient intradermal post-exposure prophylaxis regimens, total projected vaccine needs remain similar (about 73 million vials) yet 17·4 million more people are vaccinated, making this an extremely cost-effective method, with costs of US$635 per death averted and $33 per disability-adjusted life-years averted. Scaling up dog vaccination programmes could eliminate dog-mediated rabies over this time period; improved post-exposure prophylaxis access remains cost-effective under this scenario, especially in combination with patient risk assessments to reduce unnecessary post-exposure prophylaxis use.InterpretationInvesting in post-exposure vaccines would be an extremely cost-effective intervention that could substantially reduce disease burden and catalyse dog vaccination efforts to eliminate dog-mediated rabies.FundingWorld Health Organization.

Project description:BackgroundTyphoid fever is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries. In 2017, WHO recommended the programmatic use of typhoid Vi-conjugate vaccine (TCV) in endemic settings, and Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, has pledged support for vaccine introduction in these countries. Country-level health economic evaluations are now needed to inform decision-making.MethodsIn this modelling study, we compared four strategies: no vaccination, routine immunisation at 9 months, and routine immunisation at 9 months with catch-up campaigns to either age 5 years or 15 years. For each of the 54 countries eligible for Gavi support, output from an age-structured transmission-dynamic model was combined with country-specific treatment and vaccine-related costs, treatment outcomes, and disability weights to estimate the reduction in typhoid burden, identify the strategy that maximised average net benefit (ie, the optimal strategy) across a range of country-specific willingness-to-pay (WTP) values, estimate and investigate the uncertainties surrounding our findings, and identify the epidemiological conditions under which vaccination is optimal.FindingsThe optimal strategy was either no vaccination or TCV immunisation including a catch-up campaign. Routine vaccination with a catch-up campaign to 15 years of age was optimal in 38 countries, assuming a WTP value of at least US$200 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, or assuming a WTP value of at least 25% of each country's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per DALY averted, at a vaccine price of $1·50 per dose (but excluding Gavi's contribution according to each country's transition phase). This vaccination strategy was also optimal in 48 countries assuming a WTP of at least $500 per DALY averted, in 51 with assumed WTP values of at least $1000, in 47 countries assuming a WTP value of at least 50% of GDP per capita per DALY averted, and in 49 assuming a minimum of 100%. Vaccination was likely to be cost-effective in countries with 300 or more typhoid cases per 100 000 person-years. Uncertainty about the probability of hospital admission (and typhoid incidence and mortality) had the greatest influence on the optimal strategy.InterpretationCountries should establish their own WTP threshold and consider routine TCV introduction, including a catch-up campaign when vaccination is optimal on the basis of this threshold. Obtaining improved estimates of the probability of hospital admission would be valuable whenever the optimal strategy is uncertain.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Research Foundation-Flanders, and the Belgian-American Education Foundation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although guidelines for prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination recommend two doses for girls ages 9-14?years, several studies have demonstrated similar protection with one dose. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term health and economic impacts of routine one-dose HPV vaccination compared to (1) no vaccination and (2) two-dose HPV vaccination in a low-income country. METHODS:We used a three-tiered hybrid modeling approach that captured HPV transmission, cervical carcinogenesis, and population demographics to project long-term health and economic outcomes associated with one-dose HPV vaccination (assuming 80% efficacy against HPV-16/18 infections under three waning scenarios) and two-dose HPV vaccination (assuming 100% efficacy over the lifetime) in Uganda. Costs included the vaccine program (dosage and delivery) costs over a 10-year period and cervical cancer costs over the lifetimes of the current population of Ugandan women. Health outcomes included number of cervical cancer cases and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (i.e., cost per DALY averted) were calculated and compared against the Ugandan per-capita gross domestic product. RESULTS:Routine one-dose HPV vaccination of 9-year-old girls required substantial upfront investment but was cost-saving compared to no vaccination when accounting for the cost-offsets from future cancers averted. Forty years after initiating routine vaccination and depending on assumptions of vaccine waning, one-dose HPV vaccination with equivalent coverage (70%) averted 15-16% of cervical cancer cases versus 21% with two-dose vaccination but required only half the upfront economic investment. Vaccination with two doses had an attractive cost-effectiveness profile except if one-dose vaccination enabled higher coverage (90% vs. 70%) and did not wane. CONCLUSIONS:One-dose HPV vaccination resulted in cost-savings compared to no vaccination and could be cost-effective compared to two-dose vaccination if protection is longstanding and higher coverage can be achieved.

Project description:BackgroundImmunization policymakers at global and local levels need to establish priorities among new vaccines competing for limited resources. However, comparison of the potential impact of single vaccination programs is challenging, primarily due to the limited number of vaccine analyses as well as their differing analytic approaches and reporting formats. The purpose of this study is to provide early insight into how the comparative impact of different new vaccines could be assessed in resource-poor settings with respect to affordability, cost-effectiveness, and distributional equity.MethodsWe compared the health, economic, and financial consequences of introducing the two vaccines in 72 GAVI-eligible countries using a number of different outcome measures to evaluate affordability, cost-effectiveness, and distributional equity. We use simple static models to standardize the analytic framework and improve comparability between the two new vaccines. These simple models were validated by leveraging previously developed, more complex models for rotavirus and human papillomavirus (HPV).ResultsWith 70% coverage of a single-age cohort of infants and pre-adolescent girls, the lives saved with rotavirus (~274,000) and HPV vaccines (~286,000) are similar, although the timing of averted mortality differs; rotavirus-attributable deaths occur in close proximity to infection, while HPV-related cancer deaths occur largely after age 30. Deaths averted per 1000 vaccinated are 5.2 (rotavirus) and 12.6 (HPV). Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted were ~7.15 million (rotavirus) and ~1.30 million (HPV), reflecting the greater influence of discounting on the latter, given the lagtime between vaccination and averted cancer. In most countries (68 for rotavirus and 66 for HPV, at the cost of I$25 per vaccinated individual) the incremental cost per DALY averted was lower than each country's GDP per capita. Financial resources required for vaccination with rotavirus are higher than with HPV since both genders are vaccinated.ConclusionsWhile lifesaving benefits of rotavirus and HPV vaccines will be realized at different times, the number of lives saved over each target populations' lifetimes will be similar. Model-based analyses that use a standardized analytic approach and generate comparable outputs can enrich the priority-setting dialogue. Although new vaccines may be deemed cost-effective, other factors including affordability and distributional equity need to be considered in different settings. We caution that for priority setting in an individual country, more rigorous comparisons should be performed, using more comprehensive models and considering all relevant vaccines and delivery strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) frequently causes acute lower respiratory infection in children under 5, representing a high burden in Gavi-eligible countries (mostly low-income and lower-middle-income). Since multiple RSV interventions, including vaccines and monoclonal antibody (mAb) candidates, are under development, we aim to evaluate the key drivers of the cost-effectiveness of maternal vaccination and infant mAb for 72 Gavi countries. METHODS:A static Multi-Country Model Application for RSV Cost-Effectiveness poLicy (MCMARCEL) was developed to follow RSV-related events monthly from birth until 5 years of age. MCMARCEL was parameterised using country- and age-specific demographic, epidemiological, and cost data. The interventions' level and duration of effectiveness were guided by the World Health Organization's preferred product characteristics and other literature. Maternal vaccination and mAb were assumed to require single-dose administration at prices assumed to align with other Gavi-subsidised technologies. The effectiveness and the prices of the interventions were simultaneously varied in extensive scenario analyses. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were the primary health outcomes for cost-effectiveness, integrated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses and Expected Value of Partially Perfect Information analysis. RESULTS:The RSV-associated disease burden among children in these 72 countries is estimated at an average of 20.8 million cases, 1.8 million hospital admissions, 40 thousand deaths, 1.2 million discounted DALYs, and US$611 million discounted direct costs. Strategy 'mAb' is more effective due to its assumed longer duration of protection versus maternal vaccination, but it was also assumed to be more expensive. Given all parameterised uncertainty, the optimal strategy of choice tends to change for increasing willingness to pay (WTP) values per DALY averted from the current situation to maternal vaccination (at WTP?>?US$1000) to mAB (at WTP?>?US$3500). The age-specific proportions of cases that are hospitalised and/or die cause most of the uncertainty in the choice of optimal strategy. Results are broadly similar across countries. CONCLUSIONS:Both the maternal and mAb strategies need to be competitively priced to be judged as relatively cost-effective. Information on the level and duration of protection is crucial, but also more and better disease burden evidence-especially on RSV-attributable hospitalisation and death rates-is needed to support policy choices when novel RSV products become available.

Project description:BackgroundBetween 2012 and 2016, development assistance for HIV/AIDS decreased by 20·0%; domestic financing is therefore critical to sustaining the response to HIV/AIDS. To understand whether domestic resources could fill the financing gaps created by declines in development assistance, we aimed to track spending on HIV/AIDS and estimated the potential for governments to devote additional domestic funds to HIV/AIDS.MethodsWe extracted 8589 datapoints reporting spending on HIV/AIDS. We used spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to estimate a complete time series of spending by domestic sources (government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket) and spending category (prevention, and care and treatment) from 2000 to 2016 for 137 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Development assistance data for HIV/AIDS were from Financing Global Health 2018, and HIV/AIDS prevalence, incidence, and mortality were from the Global Burden of Disease study 2017. We used stochastic frontier analysis to estimate potential additional government spending on HIV/AIDS, which was conditional on the current government health budget and other finance, economic, and contextual factors associated with HIV/AIDS spending. All spending estimates were reported in 2018 US$.FindingsBetween 2000 and 2016, total spending on HIV/AIDS in LMICs increased from $4·0 billion (95% uncertainty interval 2·9-6·0) to $19·9 billion (15·8-26·3), spending on HIV/AIDS prevention increased from $596 million (258 million to 1·3 billion) to $3·0 billion (1·5-5·8), and spending on HIV/AIDS care and treatment increased from $1·1 billion (458·1 million to 2·2 billion) to $7·2 billion (4·3-11·8). Over this time period, the share of resources sourced from development assistance increased from 33·2% (21·3-45·0) to 46·0% (34·2-57·0). Care and treatment spending per year on antiretroviral therapy varied across countries, with an IQR of $284-2915. An additional $12·1 billion (8·4-17·5) globally could be mobilised by governments of LMICs to finance the response to HIV/AIDS. Most of these potential resources are concentrated in ten middle-income countries (Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa, and Vietnam).InterpretationSome governments could mobilise more domestic resources to fight HIV/AIDS, which could free up additional development assistance for many countries without this ability, including many low-income, high-prevalence countries. However, a large gap exists between available financing and the funding needed to achieve global HIV/AIDS goals, and sustained and coordinated effort across international and domestic development partners is required to end AIDS by 2030.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:Novel vaccine development and production has given rise to a growing number of vaccines that can prevent disease and save lives. In order to realize these health benefits, it is essential to ensure adequate immunization financing to enable equitable access to vaccines for people in all communities. This analysis estimates the full immunization program costs, projected available financing, and resulting funding gap for 94 low- and middle-income countries over five years (2016-2020). Vaccine program financing by country governments, Gavi, and other development partners was forecasted for vaccine, supply chain, and service delivery, based on an analysis of comprehensive multi-year plans together with a series of scenario and sensitivity analyses. Findings indicate that delivery of full vaccination programs across 94 countries would result in a total funding gap of $7.6 billion (95% uncertainty range: $4.6-$11.8 billion) over 2016-2020, with the bulk (98%) of the resources required for routine immunization programs. More than half (65%) of the resources to meet this funding gap are required for service delivery at $5.0 billion ($2.7-$8.4 billion) with an additional $1.1 billion ($0.9-$2.7 billion) needed for vaccines and $1.5 billion ($1.1-$2.0 billion) for supply chain. When viewed as a percentage of total projected costs, the funding gap represents 66% of projected supply chain costs, 30% of service delivery costs, and 9% of vaccine costs. On average, this funding gap corresponds to 0.2% of general government expenditures and 2.3% of government health expenditures. These results suggest greater need for country and donor resource mobilization and funding allocation for immunizations. Both service delivery and supply chain are important areas for further resource mobilization. Further research on the impact of advances in service delivery technology and reductions in vaccine prices beyond this decade would be important for efficient investment decisions for immunization.