Dataset Information

Cost of goods sold and total cost of delivery for oral and parenteral vaccine packaging formats.

ABSTRACT: Despite limitations of glass packaging for vaccines, the industry has been slow to implement alternative formats. Polymer containers may address many of these limitations, such as breakage and delamination. However, the ability of polymer containers to achieve cost of goods sold (COGS) and total cost of delivery (TCOD) competitive with that of glass containers is unclear, especially for cost-sensitive low- and lower-middle-income countries. COGS and TCOD models for oral and parenteral vaccine packaging formats were developed based on information from subject matter experts, published literature, and Kenya's comprehensive multiyear plan for immunization. Rotavirus and inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) were used as representative examples of oral and parenteral vaccines, respectively. Packaging technologies evaluated included glass vials, blow-fill-seal (BFS) containers, preformed polymer containers, and compact prefilled auto-disable (CPAD) devices in both BFS and preformed formats. For oral vaccine packaging, BFS multi-monodose (MMD) ampoules were the least expensive format, with a COGS of $0.12 per dose. In comparison, oral single-dose glass vials had a COGS of $0.40. BFS MMD ampoules had the lowest TCOD of oral vaccine containers at $1.19 per dose delivered, and ten-dose glass vials had a TCOD of $1.61 per dose delivered. For parenteral vaccines, the lowest COGS was achieved with ten-dose glass vials at $0.22 per dose. In contrast, preformed CPAD devices had the highest COGS at $0.60 per dose. Ten-dose glass vials achieved the lowest TCOD of the parenteral vaccine formats at $1.56 per dose delivered. Of the polymer containers for parenteral vaccines, BFS MMD ampoules achieved the lowest TCOD at $1.89 per dose delivered, whereas preformed CPAD devices remained the most expensive format, at $2.25 per dose delivered. Given their potential to address the limitations of glass and reduce COGS and TCOD, polymer containers deserve further consideration as alternative approaches for vaccine packaging.

SUBMITTER: Sedita J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5844852 | biostudies-other | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost of goods sold and total cost of delivery for oral and parenteral vaccine packaging formats.

Sedita Jeff J Perrella Stefanie S Morio Matt M Berbari Michael M Hsu Jui-Shan JS Saxon Eugene E Jarrahian Courtney C Rein-Weston Annie A Zehrung Darin D

Vaccine 20180212 12

Despite limitations of glass packaging for vaccines, the industry has been slow to implement alternative formats. Polymer containers may address many of these limitations, such as breakage and delamination. However, the ability of polymer containers to achieve cost of goods sold (COGS) and total cost of delivery (TCOD) competitive with that of glass containers is unclear, especially for cost-sensitive low- and lower-middle-income countries. COGS and TCOD models for oral and parenteral vaccine pa ...[more]

PMID: 29449099

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cholera is both an endemic and epidemic disease in many low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Strategies for cholera control include improving water, sanitation, and hygiene; providing early and effective treatment; and deploying oral cholera vaccine (OCV). This last strategy is relatively new, and countries considering its introduction are interested in knowing the potential cost not only of the vaccine, but also the cost of introduction. This paper describes the costing of OCV introduction in LMICs using a publicly available Excel-based tool known as the CholTool. It includes estimates of delivery cost categories which cover not only the service delivery costs (e.g. vaccine procurement, handling, storage, and transport; vaccination administration, monitoring supervision, and field support), but also the programmatic costs associated with introducing a new vaccine (i.e. microplanning, communication and training materials development, sensitization/social mobilization, and personnel training) to ensure that a comprehensive estimate is provided with health payer perspective. CholTool takes the user through a structured sequence of interlinked modules containing input parameter cells (assumptions), decision cells (variable selections), and formulas (calculations) to produce customized cost estimates based on standardized methods. The tool provides both financial and economic cost estimates, to ensure that both costs are available for consideration. Four examples of applications of CholTool are presented in three countries- one in Ethiopia, two in Malawi and one in Nepal. The estimates of economic delivery cost per dose (including service delivery and programmatic costs) were (in USD 2016): $2.89 in Ethiopia, $3.04 in Malawi1, $3.35 in Malawi2 and $3.06 in Nepal. A cost projection conducted before the campaign using the tool and a retrospective costing using the tool in Nepal resulted in no significant difference between economic delivery costs per dose.

Project description:Hyperglycemia is associated with poor clinical outcomes and mortality in several patients. However, studies evaluating hyperglycemia variation in tumor patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN) are scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between glycemia and tumor kinds with TPN by monitoring glycemic variation in tumor patients.This retrospective clinical trial selected 312 patients with various cancer types, whose unique nutrition treatment was TPN during the monitoring period. All patients had blood glucose (BG) values assessed at least six times daily during the TPN infusion. The glycemic variation before and after TPN was set as the indicator to evaluate the factors influencing BG.The clinical trial lasted 7.5 ± 3.0 days adjusted for age, gender, family cancer history and blood types. There were six cancer types: Hepatic carcinoma (HC, 21.8%), rectal carcinoma (17.3%), colon carcinoma (CC, 14.7%), gastric carcinoma (29.8%), pancreatic carcinoma (11.5%), and duodenal carcinoma (DC, 4.8%). The patients were divided into diabetes and nondiabetes groups. No statistical differences in TPN glucose content between diabetes and nondiabetes groups were found; however, the tumor types affected by BG values were obvious. With increasing BG values, DC, HC and CC were more represented than other tumor types in this sequence in diabetic individuals, as well as in the nondiabetic group. BG was inclined to be more easily influenced in the nondiabetes group. Other factors did not impact BG values, including gender, body mass index, and TPN infusion duration time.When tumor patients are treated with TPN, BG levels should be monitored according to different types of tumors, besides differentiating diabetes or nondiabetes patients. Special BG control is needed for DC, HC and CC in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. If BG overtly increases, positive measurements are needed to control BG values. The ClinicalTrials.gov ID is NCT02024321.

Dataset Information

Cost of goods sold and total cost of delivery for oral and parenteral vaccine packaging formats.

Publications

Cost of goods sold and total cost of delivery for oral and parenteral vaccine packaging formats.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets