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

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: An 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. FINDINGS: At 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. INTERPRETATION: The 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.

Healthcare provider perspectives on delivering next generation rotavirus vaccines in five low-to-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Live 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. OBJECTIVE: Determine HP vaccine preferences about delivering LORVs compared to injectable (iNGRV) and neonatal oral (oNGRV) NGRVs. METHODS: 64 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. RESULTS: Almost 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. CONCLUSION: Our 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.

Projecting the cost of introducing typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) in the national immunization program in Malawi using a standardized costing framework.

BACKGROUND: There is a substantial typhoid burden in sub-Saharan Africa, and TCV has been introduced in two African countries to date. Decision-makers in Malawi decided to introduce TCV and applied for financial support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance in 2020. The current plan is to introduce TCV as part of the national immunization program in late 2022. The introduction will include a nationwide campaign targeting all children aged 9 months to 15 years. Following the campaign, TCV will be provided through routine immunization at 9 months. This study aims to estimate the cost of TCV introduction and recurrent delivery as part of the national immunization program. METHODS: This costing analysis is conducted from the government's perspective and focuses on projecting the incremental cost of TCV introduction and delivery for Malawi's existing immunization program before vaccine introduction. The study uses a costing tool developed by Levin & Morgan through a partnership between the International Vaccine Institute and the World Health Organization and leverages primary and secondary data collected through key informant interviews with representatives of the Malawi Expanded Programme on Immunization team at various levels. RESULTS: The total financial and economic costs of TCV introduction over three years in Malawi are projected to be US$8.5 million and US$29.8 million, respectively. More than two-thirds of the total cost is made up of recurrent costs. Major cost drivers include the procurement of vaccines and injection supplies and service delivery costs. Without vaccine cost, we estimate the cost per child immunized to be substantially lower than US$1. DISCUSSION: Findings from this analysis may be used to assess the economic implications of introducing TCV in Malawi. Major cost drivers highlighted by the analysis may also inform decision-makers in the region as they assess the value and feasibility of TCV introduction in their national immunization program.

National stakeholder preferences for next-generation rotavirus vaccines: Results from a six-country study.

BACKGROUND: Currently available live, oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced severe rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are not as effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where rotavirus disease burden is highest. Next-generation rotavirus vaccine (NGRV) candidates in development may have a greater public health impact where they are needed most. The feasibility and acceptability of possible new rotavirus vaccines were explored as part of a larger public health value proposition for injectable NGRVs in LMICs. OBJECTIVE: To assess national stakeholder preferences for currently available LORVs and hypothetical NGRVs and understand rationales and drivers for stated preferences. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 71 national stakeholders who influence vaccine policy and national programming. Stakeholders from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, Senegal, and Sri Lanka were interviewed using a mixed-method guide. Vaccine preferences were elicited on seven vaccine comparisons involving LORVs and hypothetical NGRVs based on information presented comparing the vaccines' attributes. Reasons for vaccine preference were elicited in open-ended questions, and the qualitative data were analyzed on key preference drivers. RESULTS: Nearly half of the national stakeholders interviewed preferred a highly effective standalone, injectable NGRV over current LORVs. When presented as having similar efficacy to the LORV, however, very few stakeholders preferred the injectable NGRV, even at substantially lower cost. Similarly, a highly effective standalone injectable NGRV was generally not favored over an equally effective oral NGRV following a neonatal-infant schedule, despite higher cost of the neonatal option. An NGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine was strongly preferred over all other options, whether delivered alone with efficacy similar to current LORVs or co-administered alongside an LORV (LORV + NGRV-DTP) to increase efficacy. CONCLUSION: Results from these national stakeholder interviews provide valuable insights to inform ongoing and future NGRV research and development.

Correction: Costs of continuing RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccination in the three malaria vaccine pilot implementation countries.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244995.].

Costs of continuing RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccination in the three malaria vaccine pilot implementation countries.

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccine is being piloted in three countries-Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi-as part of a coordinated evaluation led by the World Health Organization, with support from global partners. This study estimates the costs of continuing malaria vaccination upon completion of the pilot evaluation to inform decision-making and planning around potential further use of the vaccine in pilot areas. METHODS: We used an activity-based costing approach to estimate the incremental costs of continuing to deliver four doses of RTS,S/ASO1E through the existing Expanded Program on Immunization platform, from each government's perspective. The RTS,S/ASO1E pilot introduction plans were reviewed and adapted to identify activities for costing. Key informant interviews with representatives from Ministries of Health (MOH) were conducted to inform the activities, resource requirements, and assumptions that, in turn, inform the analysis. Both financial and economic costs per dose, cost of delivery per dose, and cost per fully vaccinated child (FVC) are estimated and reported in 2017 USD units. RESULTS: At a vaccine price of $5 per dose and assuming the vaccine is donor-funded, our estimated incremental financial costs range from $1.70 (Kenya) to $2.44 (Malawi) per dose, $0.23 (Malawi) to $0.71 (Kenya) per dose delivered (excluding procurement add-on costs), and $11.50 (Ghana) to $13.69 (Malawi) per FVC. Estimates of economic costs per dose are between three and five times higher than financial costs. Variations in activities used for costing, procurement add-on costs, unit costs of per diems, and allowances contributed to differences in cost estimates across countries. CONCLUSION: Cost estimates in this analysis are meant to inform country decision-makers as they face the question of whether to continue malaria vaccination, should the intervention receive a positive recommendation for broader use. Additionally, important cost drivers for vaccine delivery are highlighted, some of which might be influenced by global and country-specific financing and existing procurement mechanisms. This analysis also adds to the evidence available on vaccine delivery costs for products delivered outside the standard immunization schedule.