RESUMO
Mozambique has one of the highest rates of cervical cancer in the world. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was introduced in 2021. This study evaluated the health and economic impact of the current HPV vaccine (GARDASIL® hereafter referred to as GARDASIL-4) and two other vaccines (CECOLIN® and CERVARIX®) that could be used in the future. A static cohort model was used to estimate the costs and benefits of vaccinating girls in Mozambique over the period 2022-2031. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted from a government perspective. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Without cross-protection, all three vaccines averted approximately 54% cervical cancer cases and deaths. With cross-protection, CERVARIX averted 70% of cases and deaths. Without Gavi support, the discounted vaccine program costs ranged from 60 million to 81 million USD. Vaccine program costs were approximately 37 million USD for all vaccines with Gavi support. Without cross-protection, CECOLIN was dominant, being cost-effective with or without Gavi support. With cross-protection and Gavi support, CERVARIX was dominant and cost-saving. With cross-protection and no Gavi support, CECOLIN had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio. Conclusions: At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold set at 35% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, HPV vaccination is cost-effective in Mozambique. The optimal vaccine choice depends on cross-protection assumptions.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Rotavirus is one of the most common cause of severe gastroenteritis in children, with the largest mortality burden in low- and middle-income countries. To prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis, Mozambique introduced ROTARIX® vaccine in 2015, however, its cost-effectiveness has never been established in the country. In 2018, additional vaccines became available globally. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of the recently introduced ROTARIX in Mozambique and compares the cost-effectiveness of ROTARIX®, ROTAVAC®, and ROTASIIL® to inform future use. METHODS: We used a decision-support model to calculate the potential cost-effectiveness of vaccination with ROTARIX compared to no vaccination over a five-year period (2016-2020) and to compare the cost-effectiveness of ROTARIX, ROTAVAC, and ROTASIIL to no vaccination and to each other over a ten-year period (2021-2030). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from a government perspective. We assessed uncertainty through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, we estimate the vaccine program with ROTARIX cost US$12.3 million, prevented 4,628 deaths, and averted US$3.1 million in healthcare costs. The cost per DALY averted was US$70. From 2021 to 2030, we estimate all three vaccines could prevent 9,000 deaths and avert US$7.8 million in healthcare costs. With Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (Gavi) support, ROTARIX would have the lowest vaccine program cost (US$31 million) and 98 % probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.5x GDP per capita. Without Gavi support, ROTASIIL would have the lowest vaccine program cost (US$75.8 million) and 30 % probability of being cost-effective at the same threshold. CONCLUSION: ROTARIX vaccination had a substantial public health impact in Mozambique between 2016 and 2020. ROTARIX is currently estimated to be the most cost-effective product, but the choice of vaccine should be re-evaluated as more evidence emerges on the price, incremental delivery cost, wastage, and impact associated with each of the different rotavirus vaccines.