Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Africa has some of the highest cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates globally. Burkina Faso launched a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme for 9-year-old girls in 2022 with support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi). An economic evaluation of HPV vaccination is required to help sustain investment and inform decisions about optimal HPV vaccine choices. Methods We used a proportionate outcomes static cohort model to evaluate the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination for 9-year-old girls over a ten-year period (2022–2031) in Burkina Faso. The primary outcome measure was the cost (2022 US$) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted from a limited societal perspective (including all vaccine costs borne by the government and Gavi, radiation therapy costs borne by the government, and all other direct medical costs borne by patients and their families). We evaluated four vaccines (CERVARIX®, CECOLIN®, GARDASIL-4®, GARDASIL-9®), comparing each to no vaccination (and no change in existing cervical cancer screening and treatment strategies) and to each other. We combined local estimates of HPV type distribution, healthcare costs, vaccine coverage and costs with GLOBOCAN 2020 disease burden data and clinical trial efficacy data. We ran deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty analyses. Results HPV vaccination could prevent 37–72% of cervical cancer cases and deaths. CECOLIN® had the most favourable cost-effectiveness (cost per DALY averted < 0.27 times the national gross domestic product [GDP] per capita). When cross-protection was included, CECOLIN® remained the most cost-effective (cost per DALY averted < 0.20 times the national GDP per capita), but CERVARIX® provided greater health benefits (66% vs. 48% reduction in cervical cancer cases and deaths) with similar cost-effectiveness (cost per DALY averted < 0.28 times the national GDP per capita, with CECOLIN® as the comparator). We estimated the annual cost of the vaccination programme at US$ 2.9, 4.1, 4.4 and 19.8 million for CECOLIN®, GARDASIL-4®, CERVARIX® and GARDASIL-9®, respectively. A single dose strategy reduced costs and improved cost-effectiveness by more than half. Conclusion HPV vaccination is cost-effective in Burkina Faso from a limited societal perspective. A single dose strategy and/or alternative Gavi-supported HPV vaccines could further improve cost-effectiveness.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic affected hundreds of millions of people and lives, and vaccination was the safest and most effective strategy to prevent and mitigate the burden of this disease. The implementation of COVID-19 vaccination in Vietnam in 2021 was unprecedentedly challenging in scale and complexity, yet economic evidence on the cost of delivery vaccines thought the program was lacking. Methods This retrospective costing study utilized a bottom-up, ingredient-based approach to estimate the cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam in 2021, from a payer perspective. The study included 38 study sites across all administrative and implementation level, including three geographic areas and two delivery strategies, in two provinces, Hanoi and Dak Lak. The study findings were complemented with qualitative interviews with health staff and stakeholders. Results The economic cost to deliver one COVID-19 vaccine dose was $1.73, mostly comprised of opportunity costs ($1.14 per dose) which were driven by labor costs ($1.12 per dose). The delivery cost in urban areas was the highest ($2.02), followed by peri-urban areas ($1.45) and remote areas ($1.37). Delivery costs were higher at temporary sites ($1.78) when compared to facility-based delivery ($1.63). Comparing low-volume and high-volume periods showed that the delivery cost decreased significantly as volume increased, from $5.24 per dose to $1.65 per dose. Conclusions The study estimates the cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam in 2021. Enabling factors and challenges during the implementation of the program were explored. Study limitations may lead to underestimation of results and reduce generalizability.

Background The development, distribution and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines following the outbreak of the global coronavirus pandemic in February 2020 is the largest global immunization action in history. To assist with planning and resource mobilization efforts, a global-level model was used to estimate expected COVID-19 vaccine delivery costs employing data from the literature on childhood and adult flu vaccine delivery. However, country-level studies were needed to validate these estimates, learn lessons for future pandemics, and plan for forthcoming COVID-19 vaccination of priority groups. Methods We tested several methodological innovations to estimate total costs and costs per dose of COVID-19 vaccine delivery in Botswana. Costs incurred by all government sectors, parastatals, donors, and non-governmental organizations were included. Both fiscal costs (financial outlays) and the value of selected, existing human resources and donated vaccines (economic costs) were included. Results Fiscal delivery costs of COVID-19 vaccination were estimated at US$49.8 million for a 13-month period, with over half accounting for newly hired human resources. Newly hired staff supported not just vaccine delivery, but also co-ordination and social mobilization efforts. The value of existing human resources deployed to support COVID-19 vaccination was US$36.6 million. Based on 2.6 million doses delivered, the fiscal and economic delivery cost per dose was US$19 and US$33, respectively. Vaccines were procured and donated at an average price per dose of US$13.46, increasing the economic cost per dose delivered to approximately US$47. Conclusions In Botswana, costs were substantially higher than modelled estimates for COVID-19 vaccine delivery and the costs of delivering routine childhood vaccines. This suggests that rolling out a new vaccine to an entire population in the middle of a pandemic requires additional financial investments beyond what has been typical for immunization services in the past.

Background The risk of herpes zoster (HZ) increases with age and in immunocompromised (IC) patients. Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) is currently recommended in Canada for people aged ≥ 50 years. The objectives of the current study were to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and public health impact of RZV versus no HZ vaccination in select Canadian IC adult populations. Methods The ZOster ecoNomic Analysis ImmunoCompromised (ZONA IC) model followed a base-case cohort of 1600 patients with hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) from a starting age of 55 years, who maintained IC status for 5 years, from a societal perspective. Scenario analyses were conducted for patients with breast cancer, renal transplant, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and Hodgkin lymphoma. These probabilistic analyses used a life-long time horizon and discount rates of 1.5% for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). First-dose coverage was assumed to be 60% and second-dose completion 100%. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis for the base case was performed. Costs are reported in 2022 Canadian dollars, with an assumed cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. Results In the base-case analysis (HSCT), it was estimated that RZV would prevent medians of 116 HZ and 27 postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) cases, respectively versus no HZ vaccination. Estimated median numbers needed to vaccinate were 8 and 35 to avoid one HZ and one PHN case, respectively. The median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $22,648 per QALY gained and was most sensitive to assumptions of HZ incidence, direct medical costs for unvaccinated HZ without PHN, and RZV efficacy against PHN. In other IC populations, estimated median ICERs were $24,328 (breast cancer), $27,237 (renal transplant), $67,207 (HIV), and $81,470 (Hodgkin lymphoma). Conclusions RZV in Canada improves public health outcomes and is likely cost-effective for several IC conditions. Graphical Abstract

Background To improve the efficient use of scarce resources, low- and middle-income countries and development partners are increasingly encouraged to deliver multiple vaccines and other interventions in a single integrated campaign. However, little is known regarding the cost of delivering vaccines through integrated campaigns, and the extent to which efficiencies are achieved. To fill this evidence gap, we estimated the cost of integrated immunization campaigns in Nigeria and Sierra Leone, and the potential savings from integration. Methods We conducted a retrospective ingredients-based costing study from a payer perspective of a campaign held in 2019 in Sierra Leone with measles-rubella vaccine and oral polio vaccine, during which nutrition supplements were also offered in part of the country, and yellow fever campaigns held in three states in Nigeria in 2019 and 2020, where in one state (Anambra) meningococcal A vaccines were co-delivered. We collected data from 108 health facilities, all relevant administrative levels, and implementing partners. We estimated the full financial and economic cost of each campaign, the average unit cost of delivery, as well as the cost by activity and resource type. We also estimated the cost savings from integration in Anambra state by modelling out the cost of the alternative of two standalone campaigns. Results The average financial delivery cost was $0.34 per dose in Sierra Leone, and the economic cost was $0.73 per dose. In Nigeria, the financial cost per dose was $0.29–$0.35 across the three states, and the economic cost per dose was $0.62–$0.85. Facilities and wards delivering more doses achieved a lower financial and economic unit cost of delivery, demonstrating evidence of economies of scale. We estimated that Anambra may have saved at least $1,204,133 in financial resources by integrating yellow fever and meningitis A vaccine delivery, amounting to $0.17 per dose delivered. When including opportunity costs, the economic cost saving was estimated at $0.34 per dose delivered. Conclusions The study offers evidence on what it costs to deliver integrated campaigns, and shows that integrated delivery is likely to result in significant cost savings. Where high delivery volumes can be achieved, integrated campaigns can benefit from economies of scale. The findings can be used to inform planning and budgeting for immunization campaigns in low- and middle-income countries.

Introducing new vaccines within national immunization programs requires careful consideration of disease- and vaccine-related issues as well as of the strength of the program and the affected health system. Economic evaluations play an essential role in this process. In this editorial, we set the context and invite contributions for a BMC Health Services Research Collection of articles titled ‘Economic Evaluations of Vaccine Programs’.

Background Argentina currently uses a pentavalent vaccine containing diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whole cell), Haemophilus influenza type b and hepatitis B antigens, administered concomitantly with the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) (DTwP-Hib-HB plus IPV) in its childhood vaccination schedule. However, hexavalent vaccines containing acellular pertussis antigens (DTaP-Hib-HB-IPV) and providing protection against the same diseases are also licensed, but are only available with a private prescription or for high-risk pre-term infants in the public health program. We analyzed the cost of switching from the current schedule to the alternative schedule with the hexavalent vaccine in Argentina, assuming similar levels of effectiveness. Methods The study population was infants ≤ 1 year of age born in Argentina from 2015 to 2019. The analysis considered adverse events, programmatic, logistic, and vaccine costs of both schemes from the societal perspective. The societal costs were disaggregated to summarize costs incurred in the public sector and with vaccination pre-term infants in the public sector. Costs were expressed in 2021 US Dollars (US$). Results Although the cost of vaccines with the alternative scheme would be US$39.8 million (M) more than with the current scheme, these additional costs are in large part offset by fewer adverse event-associated costs and lower programmatic costs such that the overall cost of the alternative scheme would only be an additional US$3.6 M from the societal perspective. The additional cost associated with switching to the alternative scheme in the public sector and with the vaccination of pre-term infants in the public sector would be US$2.1 M and US$84,023, respectively. Conclusions The switch to an alternative scheme with the hexavalent vaccine in Argentina would result in marginally higher vaccine costs, which are mostly offset by the lower costs associated with improved logistics, fewer separate vaccines, and a reduction in adverse events.

Coronavirus has claimed the lives of over half a million people world-wide and this death toll continues to rise rapidly each day. In the absence of a vaccine, non-clinical preventative measures have been implemented as the principal means of limiting deaths. However, these measures have caused unprecedented disruption to daily lives and economic activity. Given this developing crisis, the potential for a second wave of infections and the near certainty of future pandemics, lessons need to be rapidly gleaned from the available data. We address the challenges of cross-country comparisons by allowing for differences in reporting and variation in underlying socio-economic conditions between countries. Our analyses show that, to date, differences in policy interventions have out-weighed socio-economic variation in explaining the range of death rates observed in the data. Our epidemiological models show that across 8 countries a further week long delay in imposing lockdown would likely have cost more than half a million lives. Furthermore, those countries which acted more promptly saved substantially more lives than those that delayed. Linking decisions over the timing of lockdown and consequent deaths to economic data, we reveal the costs that national governments were implicitly prepared to pay to protect their citizens as reflected in the economic activity foregone to save lives. These ‘price of life’ estimates vary enormously between countries, ranging from as low as around $100,000 (e.g. the UK, US and Italy) to in excess of $1million (e.g. Denmark, Germany, New Zealand and Korea). The lowest estimates are further reduced once we correct for under-reporting of Covid-19 deaths.

We discuss the need to make economic evaluations of vaccines antimicrobial resistance (AMR)-sensitive and ways to do so. Such AMR-sensitive evaluations can play a role in value-for-money comparisons of different vaccines within a national immunization program, or in comparisons of vaccine-centric and nonvaccine-centric technologies within an anti-AMR program. In general terms, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and rates of return and their associated decision rules are unaltered by consideration of AMR-related value. The decision metrics need to have their various health, cost, and socioeconomic terms disaggregated into resistance-related subcategories, which in turn have to be measured carefully before they are reaggregated. The fundamental scientific challenges lie primarily in quantifying the causal impact of health technologies on resistance-related health outcomes, and secondarily in ascertaining the economic value of those outcomes. We emphasize the importance of evaluating vaccines in the context of other potentially complementary and substitutable nonvaccine technologies. Complementarity implies that optimal spending on each set of interventions is positive, and substitutability implies that the ratio of spending will depend on relative value for money. We exemplify this general point through a qualitative discussion of the complementarities and (especially the) substitutability between pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and antimicrobial stewardship and between research and development (R&D) of a gonorrhea vaccine versus R&D of a gonorrhea antibiotic. We propose a roadmap for future work, which includes quantifying the causal effects of vaccination and other health technologies on short-term and long-term resistance-related outcomes, measuring the health-sector costs and broader socioeconomic consequences of resistance-related mortality and morbidity, and evaluating vaccines in the context of nonvaccine complements and substitutes.

•These 4vHPV and 2vHPV vaccines evaluation considered health system perspective.•The bivalent vaccination was found to be cost-effective at Gavi-negotiated prices in Bangladesh.•This vaccine offers substantial future benefits for preadolescents in Bangladesh. Cervical cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in women caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV) that leads to a substantial disease burden for health systems. Prevention through vaccination can significantly reduce the prevalence of cervical cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential health and economic impacts of introducing two-dose bivalent (Cervarix) and quadrivalent (Gardasil) HPV vaccines in Bangladesh. The study uses the Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics (PRIME) model to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing HPV vaccination. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted using the cost-effectiveness threshold (CET). The analyses were done from a health system perspective in terms of vaccine delivery routes. Introduction of bi-valent HPV vaccination was found highly cost-effective (ICER = US$488/DALY) at Gavi (The Vaccine Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations) negotiated prices. The value of ICERs were US$710, US$356 and US$397 per DALY averted for school-based, health facility-based, and outreach-based programs, respectively, which is consistent with the CET range (US$67 to US$854). However, bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines at listed prices were not found cost-effective, with ICERs of US$1405 and US$3250 per DALY averted, respectively, that exceeds the CETs values. Introducing a two-dose bi-valent HPV vaccination program is cost-effective in Bangladesh at Gavi negotiated prices. Vaccine price is the dominating parameter for the cost-effectiveness of bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines. Both vaccines are not cost-effective at listed prices in Bangladesh. The evaluation highlights that introducing the two-dose bivalent HPV vaccine at Gavi negotiated prices into a national immunization program in Bangladesh is economically viable to reduce the burden of cervical cancer.