Comprehensive approach to costing cervical cancer prevention and control: a case study in the United Republic of Tanzania using the Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) tool.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a costing tool, the Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) tool, to estimate the comprehensive cost of cervical cancer primary, secondary and tertiary prevention in low- and middle-income countries. The tool was piloted in the United Republic of Tanzania, a country with a high incidence of cervical cancer with 62.5 cases per 100,000 women in 2020. This paper presents the costing tool methods as well as the results from the pilot in Tanzania. METHODS: The C4P tool estimates the incremental costs of cervical cancer prevention and control programmes. It estimates the financial (monetary costs to the government) and economic costs (opportunity costs). For the pilot, the study team collected data on costs and programme assumptions for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of 14-year-old girls and scaling up of cervical cancer screening (visual inspection with acetic acid and HPV-DNA testing) and treatment for women for 2020-2024. Assumptions were made on how vaccination coverage would increase over the 5 years as well as developing additional screening and treatment capacity through health personnel training and infrastructure strengthening. RESULTS: The total financial and economic costs of the comprehensive programme during 2020-2024 are projected to be US$68 million and US$124 million, respectively. The financial and economic costs of a fully immunized girl with HPV vaccine are estimated to be US$6.68 and US$17.31, respectively, while the costs per woman screened for cervical cancer are, on average, US$4.02 and US$5.83, respectively; US$6.44 and US$9.37 for pre-cancer treatment, respectively; and US$101 and US$107 for diagnosis of invasive cancer, respectively. The cost of treating and managing invasive cancer range from US$7.05 and US$7.83 for outpatient palliative care to US$800.21 and US$893.80 for radiotherapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The C4P costing tool can assist national cervical cancer programmes to estimate monetary resources needed as well as opportunity costs of reducing national cervical cancer incidence through primary, secondary and tertiary prevention.

WHO-led consensus statement on vaccine delivery costing: process, methods, and findings.

BACKGROUND: Differences in definitions and methodological approaches have hindered comparison and synthesis of economic evaluation results across multiple health domains, including immunization. At the request of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Immunization and Vaccines-related Implementation Research Advisory Committee (IVIR-AC), WHO convened an ad hoc Vaccine Delivery Costing Working Group, comprising experts from eight organizations working in immunization costing, to address a lack of standardization and gaps in definitions and methodological guidance. The aim of the Working Group was to develop a consensus statement harmonizing terminology and principles and to formulate recommendations for vaccine delivery costing for decision making. This paper discusses the process, findings of the review, and recommendations in the Consensus Statement. METHODS: The Working Group conducted several interviews, teleconferences, and one in-person meeting to identify groups working in vaccine delivery costing as well as existing guidance documents and costing tools, focusing on those for low- and middle-income country settings. They then reviewed the costing aims, perspectives, terms, methods, and principles in these documents. Consensus statement principles were drafted to align with the Global Health Cost Consortium costing guide as an agreed normative reference, and consensus definitions were drafted to reflect the predominant view across the documents reviewed. RESULTS: The Working Group identified four major workstreams on vaccine delivery costing as well as nine guidance documents and eleven costing tools for immunization costing. They found that some terms and principles were commonly defined while others were specific to individual workstreams. Based on these findings and extensive consultation, recommendations to harmonize differences in terminology and principles were made. CONCLUSIONS: Use of standardized principles and definitions outlined in the Consensus Statement within the immunization delivery costing community of practice can facilitate interpretation of economic evidence by global, regional, and national decision makers. Improving methodological alignment and clarity in program costing of health services such as immunization is important to support evidence-based policies and optimal resource allocation. On the other hand, this review and Consensus Statement development process revealed the limitations of our ability to harmonize given that study designs will vary depending upon the policy question that is being addressed and the country context.

Costing electronic private sector malaria surveillance in the Greater Mekong Subregion.

BACKGROUND: Private sector malaria programmes contribute to government-led malaria elimination strategies in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar by increasing access to quality malaria services and surveillance data. However, reporting from private sector providers remains suboptimal in many settings. To support surveillance strengthening for elimination, a key programme strategy is to introduce electronic surveillance tools and systems to integrate private sector data with national systems, and enhance the use of data for decision-making. During 2013-2017, an electronic surveillance system based on open source software, District Health Information System 2 (DHIS2), was implemented as part of a private sector malaria case management and surveillance programme. The electronic surveillance system covered 16,000 private providers in Myanmar (electronic reporting conducted by 200 field officers with tablets), 710 in Cambodia (585 providers reporting through mobile app), and 432 in Laos (250 providers reporting through mobile app). METHODS: The purpose of the study was to document the costs of introducing electronic surveillance systems and mobile reporting solutions in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar, comparing the cost in different operational settings, the cost of introduction and maintenance over time, and assessing the affordability and financial sustainability of electronic surveillance. The data collection methods included extracting data from PSI's financial and operational records, collecting data on prices and quantities of resources used, and interviewing key informants in each setting. The costing study used an ingredients-based approach and estimated both financial and economic costs. RESULTS: Annual economic costs of electronic surveillance systems were $152,805 in Laos, $263,224 in Cambodia, and $1,310,912 in Myanmar. The annual economic cost per private provider surveilled was $82 in Myanmar, $371 in Cambodia, and $354 in Laos. Cost drivers varied depending on operational settings and number of private sector outlets covered in each country; whether purchased or personal mobile devices were used; and whether electronic (mobile) reporting was introduced at provider level or among field officers who support multiple providers for case reporting. CONCLUSION: The study found that electronic surveillance comprises about 0.5-1.5% of national malaria strategic plan cost and 7-21% of surveillance budgets and deemed to be affordable and financially sustainable.

Scale Matters: A Cost-Outcome Analysis of an m-Health Intervention in Malawi.

BACKGROUND: The primary objectives of this study are to determine cost per user and cost per contact with users of a mobile health (m-health) intervention. The secondary objectives are to map costs to changes in maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) and to estimate costs of alternate implementation and usage scenarios. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A base cost model, constructed from recurrent costs and selected capital costs, was used to estimate average cost per user and per contact of an m-health intervention. This model was mapped to statistically significant changes in MNCH intermediate outcomes to determine the cost of improvements in MNCH indicators. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to estimate costs in alternate scenarios. RESULTS: The m-health intervention cost $29.33 per user and $4.33 per successful contact. The average cost for each user experiencing a change in an MNCH indicator ranged from $67 to $355. The sensitivity analyses showed that cost per user could be reduced by 48% if the service were to operate at full capacity. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the intervention, operating at scale, has potential to be a cost-effective method for improving maternal and child health indicators.

Strategy, demand, management, and costs of an international cholera vaccine stockpile.

In this article, we review the feasibility of mass vaccination against cholera and estimate the global population at risk for epidemic cholera. We then examine the cost of establishing and managing a cholera vaccine stockpile and summarize published mathematical models of the estimated impact of reactive vaccination campaigns developed for the current Haitian outbreak and a recent outbreak in Zimbabwe. On the basis of these evaluations, we recommend a stockpile that starts at 2 million doses, with an estimated annual cost of $5.5-$13.9 million in 2013, and grows to 10 million doses per year by 2017, with an annual cost of $27-$51 million. We believe that the stockpile can enhance efforts to mitigate future cholera outbreaks by guaranteeing the availability of cholera vaccines and, through use of the stockpile, by revealing knowledge about the efficient use of cholera vaccines during and after crises.

Systematic review of cost projections of new vaccine introduction.

BACKGROUND: A recent review of guidance documents on vaccine delivery costing revealed current guidance on cost projections for new vaccine introduction has gaps on methods of sampling, data collection and analysis. In preparation for updating the respective guidance, this systematic review was undertaken to qualitatively assess methodologies used in new vaccine cost projection studies. This will inform researchers and stakeholders about the methods of new vaccine introduction cost projections for strategic directions in countries where cost data are not available. METHODS: We systematically searched four search engines (PubMed, Cochrane Open Access, Mendeley and Google Scholar) for articles on cost projections for new vaccines published between 1999 and 15 June 2022. We developed inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of articles and analyzed the results using a PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. RESULTS: Out of 1,108 articles identified, 171 met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Half of the articles were from high-income countries (50%), and most cost projections were part of cost-effectiveness analysis (84%). The most common source of cost data was secondary national information (43%), followed by author's assumptions (17%), secondary international information (14%), and primary data collection (7%). 19% of studies didn't include costs to deliver vaccines in their cost estimation. Among studies that included secondary vaccine delivery costs, approximately half only calculated vaccine administration costs (50%), while 35% included incremental system costs and 15% utilized ingredients data. Two thirds of the studies were conducted to inform policymakers of the cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of introducing the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Half of the economic evaluations on new vaccine introductions only included partial vaccine delivery costs. Thus, total costs of vaccine introduction were often being underestimated in economic evaluations. This suggests that guidelines on economic evaluations and journals should recommend that authors include more extensive vaccine delivery costs in their studies.

Economic analyses to support decisions about HPV vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: a consensus report and guide for analysts.

Low- and middle-income countries need to consider economic issues such as cost-effectiveness, affordability and sustainability before introducing a program for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. However, many such countries lack the technical capacity and data to conduct their own analyses. Analysts informing policy decisions should address the following questions: 1) Is an economic analysis needed? 2) Should analyses address costs, epidemiological outcomes, or both? 3) If costs are considered, what sort of analysis is needed? 4) If outcomes are considered, what sort of model should be used? 5) How complex should the analysis be? 6) How should uncertainty be captured? 7) How should model results be communicated? Selecting the appropriate analysis is essential to ensure that all the important features of the decision problem are correctly represented, but that the analyses are not more complex than necessary. This report describes the consensus of an expert group convened by the World Health Organization, prioritizing key issues to be addressed when considering economic analyses to support HPV vaccine introduction in these countries.

Health economics of rubella: a systematic review to assess the value of rubella vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Most cases of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) occur in low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently recommended that countries accelerate the uptake of rubella vaccination and the GAVI Alliance is now supporting large scale measles-rubella vaccination campaigns. We performed a review of health economic evaluations of rubella and CRS to identify gaps in the evidence base and suggest possible areas of future research to support the planned global expansion of rubella vaccination and efforts towards potential rubella elimination and eradication. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of on-line databases and identified articles published between 1970 and 2012 on costs of rubella and CRS treatment and the costs, cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of rubella vaccination. We reviewed the studies and categorized them by the income level of the countries in which they were performed, study design, and research question answered. We analyzed their methodology, data sources, and other details. We used these data to identify gaps in the evidence and to suggest possible future areas of scientific study. RESULTS: We identified 27 studies: 11 cost analyses, 11 cost-benefit analyses, 4 cost-effectiveness analyses, and 1 cost-utility analysis. Of these, 20 studies were conducted in high-income countries, 5 in upper-middle income countries and two in lower-middle income countries. We did not find any studies conducted in low-income countries. CRS was estimated to cost (in 2012 US$) between $4,200 and $57,000 per case annually in middle-income countries and up to $140,000 over a lifetime in high-income countries. Rubella vaccination programs, including the vaccination of health workers, children, and women had favorable cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit ratios in high- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of CRS is costly and rubella vaccination programs are highly cost-effective. However, in order for research to support the global expansion of rubella vaccination and the drive towards rubella elimination and eradication, additional studies are required in low-income countries, to tackle methodological limitations, and to determine the most cost-effective programmatic strategies for increased rubella vaccine coverage.

Cost-effectiveness of measles and rubella elimination in low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Since 2000, the incidence of measles and rubella has declined as measles-rubella (MR) vaccine coverage increased due to intensified routine immunisation (RI) and supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs). The World Health Assembly commissioned a feasibility assessment of eliminating measles and rubella. The objective of this paper is to present the findings of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of ramping up MR vaccination with a goal of eliminating transmission in every country. METHODS: We used projections of impact of routine and SIAs during 2018-2047 for four scenarios of ramping up MR vaccination. These were combined with economic parameters to estimate costs and disability-adjusted life years averted under each scenario. Data from the literature were used for estimating the cost of increasing routine coverage, timing of SIAs and introduction of rubella vaccine in countries. RESULTS: The CEA showed that all three scenarios with ramping up coverage above the current trend were more cost-effective in most countries than the 2018 trend for both measles and rubella. When the measles and rubella scenarios were compared with each other, the most cost-effective scenario was likely to be the most accelerated one. Even though this scenario is costlier, it averts more cases and deaths and substantially reduces the cost of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The Intensified Investment scenario is likely the most cost-effective of the vaccination scenarios evaluated for reaching both measles and rubella disease elimination. Some data gaps on costs of increasing coverage were identified and future efforts should focus on filling these gaps.

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.

Costs of delivering human papillomavirus vaccination using a one- or two-dose strategy in Tanzania.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study of Two HPV Vaccines in Tanzanian Girls (DoRIS; NCT02834637), the current study is one of the first to evaluate the financial and economic costs of the national rollout of an HPV vaccination program in school-aged girls in sub-Saharan Africa and the potential costs associated with a single dose HPV vaccine program, given recent evidence suggesting that a single dose may be as efficacious as a two-dose regimen. METHODS: The World Health Organization's (WHO) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) micro-costing tool was used to estimate the total financial and economic costs of the national vaccination program from the perspective of the Tanzanian government. Cost data were collected in 2019 via surveys, workshops, and interviews with local stakeholders for vaccines and injection supplies, microplanning, training, sensitization, service delivery, supervision, and cold chain. The cost per two-dose and one-dose fully immunized girl (FIG) was calculated. RESULTS: The total financial and economic costs were US$10,117,455 and US$45,683,204, respectively, at a financial cost of $5.17 per two-dose FIG, and an economic cost of $23.34 per FIG. Vaccine and vaccine-related costs comprised the largest proportion of costs, followed by service delivery. In a one-dose scenario, the cost per FIG reduced to $2.51 (financial) and $12.18 (economic), with the largest reductions in vaccine and injection supply costs, and service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The overall cost of Tanzania's HPV vaccination program was lower per vaccinee than costs estimated from previous demonstration projects in the region, especially in a single-dose scenario. Given the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization's recent recommendation to update dosing schedules to either one or two doses of the HPV vaccine, these data provide important baseline data for Tanzania and may serve as a guide for improving coverage going forward. The findings may also aid in the prioritization of funding for countries that have not yet added HPV vaccines to their routine immunizations.

Cost of introducing and delivering malaria vaccine (RTS,S/AS01E) in areas of seasonal malaria transmission, Mali and Burkina Faso.

BACKGROUND: The WHO recommends use of the RTS,S/AS01E (RTS,S) malaria vaccine for young children living in areas of moderate to high Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission and suggests countries consider seasonal vaccination in areas with highly seasonal malaria. Seasonal vaccination is uncommon and may require adaptations with potential cost consequences. This study prospectively estimates cost of seasonal malaria vaccine delivery in Mali and Burkina Faso. METHODS: Three scenarios for seasonal vaccine delivery are costed (1) mass campaign only, (2) routine Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) and (3) mixed delivery (mass campaign and routine EPI)), from the government's perspective. Resource use data are informed by previous new vaccine introductions, supplemented with primary data from a sample of health facilities and administrative units. FINDINGS: At an assumed vaccine price of US $5 per dose, the economic cost per dose administered ranges between $7.73 and $8.68 (mass campaign), $7.04 and $7.38 (routine EPI) and $7.26 and $7.93 (mixed delivery). Excluding commodities, the cost ranges between $1.17 and $2.12 (mass campaign), $0.48 and $0.82 (routine EPI) and $0.70 and $1.37 (mixed delivery). The financial non-commodity cost per dose administered ranges between $0.99 and $1.99 (mass campaign), $0.39 and $0.76 (routine EPI) and $0.58 and $1.28 (mixed delivery). Excluding commodity costs, service delivery is the main cost driver under the mass campaign scenario, accounting for 36% to 55% of the financial cost. Service delivery accounts for 2%-8% and 12%-23% of the total financial cost under routine EPI and mixed delivery scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSION: Vaccine delivery using the mass campaign approach is most costly followed by mixed delivery and routine EPI delivery approaches, in both countries. Our cost estimates provide useful insights for decisions regarding delivery approaches, as countries plan the malaria vaccine rollout.

A case study using the United Republic of Tanzania: costing nationwide HPV vaccine delivery using the WHO Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing Tool.

BACKGROUND: The purpose, methods, data sources and assumptions behind the World Health Organization (WHO) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) tool that was developed to assist low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with planning and costing their nationwide human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program are presented. Tanzania is presented as a case study where the WHO C4P tool was used to cost and plan the roll-out of HPV vaccines nationwide as part of the national comprehensive cervical cancer prevention and control strategy. METHODS: The WHO C4P tool focuses on estimating the incremental costs to the health system of vaccinating adolescent girls through school-, health facility- and/or outreach-based strategies. No costs to the user (school girls, parents or caregivers) are included. Both financial (or costs to the Ministry of Health) and economic costs are estimated. The cost components for service delivery include training, vaccination (health personnel time and transport, stationery for tally sheets and vaccination cards, and so on), social mobilization/IEC (information, education and communication), supervision, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The costs of all the resources used for HPV vaccination are totaled and shown with and without the estimated cost of the vaccine. The total cost is also divided by the number of doses administered and number of fully immunized girls (FIGs) to estimate the cost per dose and cost per FIG. RESULTS: Over five years (2011 to 2015), the cost of establishing an HPV vaccine program that delivers three doses of vaccine to girls at schools via phased national introduction (three regions in year 1, ten regions in year 2 and all 26 regions in years 3 to 5) in Tanzania is estimated to be US$9.2 million (excluding vaccine costs) and US$31.5 million (with vaccine) assuming a vaccine price of US$5 (GAVI 2011, formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations). This is equivalent to a financial cost of US$5.77 per FIG, excluding the vaccine cost. The most important costs of service delivery are social mobilization/IEC and service delivery operational costs. CONCLUSIONS: When countries expand their immunization schedules with new vaccines such as the HPV vaccine, they face initial costs to fund critical pre-introduction activities, as well as incremental system costs to deliver the vaccines on an ongoing basis. In anticipation, governments need to plan ahead for non-vaccine costs so they will be financed adequately. Existing human resources need to be re-allocated or new staff need to be recruited for the program to be implemented successfully in a sustainable and long-term manner.Reaching a target group not routinely served by national immunization programs previously with three doses of vaccine requires new delivery strategies, more transport of vaccines and health workers and more intensive IEC activities leading to new delivery costs for the immunization program that are greater than the costs incurred when a new infant vaccine is added to the existing infant immunization schedule. The WHO C4P tool is intended to help LMICs to plan ahead and estimate the programmatic and operational costs of HPV vaccination.

Global eradication of measles: an epidemiologic and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Measles remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in children in developing countries. Due to the success of the measles mortality reduction and elimination efforts thus far, the WHO has raised the question of whether global eradication of measles is economically feasible. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of various measles mortality reduction and eradication scenarios was evaluated vis-à-vis the current mortality reduction goal in six countries and globally. Data collection on costs of measles vaccination were conducted in six countries in four regions: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Ethiopia, Tajikistan, and Uganda. The number of measles cases and deaths were projected from 2010 to 2050 using a dynamic, age-structured compartmental model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then calculated for each scenario vis a vis the baseline. RESULTS: Measles eradication by 2020 was the found to be the most cost-effective scenario, both in the six countries and globally. Eradicating measles by 2020 is projected to cost an additional discounted $7.8 billion and avert a discounted 346 million DALYs between 2010 and 2050. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the study found that, compared to the baseline, reaching measles eradication by 2020 would be the most cost-effective measles mortality reduction scenario, both for the six countries and on a global basis.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of measles elimination in Uganda: local impact of a global eradication program.

BACKGROUND: Measles control has succeeded worldwide, and many countries have substantially reduced incidence and mortality. This has led to consideration of the feasibility of measles elimination in Uganda within the context of global eradication. Before an elimination program is initiated, it is important to consider its potential economic impact, including its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for measles mortality reduction and measles elimination in Uganda. A dynamic age-structured compartmental model of measles transmission was used to simulate scenarios and estimate health outcomes and costs. The main outcome measures were costs, measles cases, measles deaths, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and ICERs measured as cost per DALY averted through either the year 2030 or 2050. RESULTS: Measles elimination by 2020 averted 130,232 measles cases, 3520 measles deaths, and 106,330 DALYs through the year 2030, compared with the next best scenario (95% mortality reduction by 2015), and it was the most cost-effective strategy, with ICERs of $556 per DALY averted (2030 time horizon) and $284 per DALY averted (2050 time horizon). CONCLUSIONS: Measles elimination in Uganda, as part of a global eradication program, is projected to be highly cost-effective and should be considered among the available policy options for dealing with the disease.

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.

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.].

Costing oral cholera vaccine delivery using a generic oral cholera vaccine delivery planning and costing tool (CholTool).

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.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of traditional and geographic information system-supported microplanning approaches for routine immunization program management in northern Nigeria.

Effective RI microplanning requires accurate population estimates and maps showing health facilities and locations of villages and target populations. Traditional microplanning relies on census figures to project target populations and on community estimates of distances, while GIS microplanning uses satellite imagery to estimate target populations and spatial analyses to estimate distances. This paper estimates the cost-effectiveness of geographical information systems (GIS)-based microplanning for routine immunization (RI) programming in two states in northern Nigeria. For our cost-effectiveness analysis, we captured the cost of all inputs for both approaches to capture the incremental cost of GIS over traditional microplanning and present the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for each vaccine-preventable illness, death, and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. We considered two scenarios for estimating vaccine requirements for each microplanning approach, one based on administrative vaccination coverage rates and one based on National Nutrition and Health Survey rates. With the administrative rates, GIS microplanning projected approximately 194,000 and 157,000 more required vaccinations than traditional microplanning in Bauchi and Sokoto States; with the survey rates, the additional number of vaccinations required was nearly 113,000 in Bauchi and about 47,000 in Sokoto. For each state under each scenario, we present numbers of and costs per measles and pertussis cases, deaths, and DALYs averted by the additional vaccinations, as well as annual costs. As expected, GIS-based microplanning incurs higher costs than traditional microplanning, due mainly to the additional vaccinations required for populations previously unreached. Our estimates of cost per DALY averted suggest, however, that GIS microplanning is more cost-effective than traditional microplanning in both states under both coverage scenarios and that the higher costs incurred by GIS microplanning are worth adopting.

Program cost analysis of influenza vaccination of health care workers in Albania.

BACKGROUND: Since 2012, WHO has recommended influenza vaccination for health care workers (HCWs), which has different costs than routine infant immunization; however, few cost estimates exist from low- and middle-income countries. Albania, a middle-income country, has self-procured influenza vaccine for some HCWs since 2014, supplemented by vaccine donations since 2016 through the Partnership for Influenza Vaccine Introduction (PIVI). We conducted a cost analysis of HCW influenza vaccination in Albania to inform scale-up and sustainability decisions. METHODS: We used the WHO's Seasonal Influenza Immunization Costing Tool (SIICT) micro-costing approach to estimate incremental costs from the government perspective of facility-based vaccination of HCWs in Albania with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2018-19 season based on 2016-17 season data from administrative records, key informant consultations, and a convenience sample of site visits. Scenario analyses varied coverage, vaccine presentation, and vaccine prices. RESULTS: In the baseline scenario, 13,377 HCWs (70% of eligible HCWs) would be vaccinated at an incremental financial cost of US$61,296 and economic cost of US$161,639. Vaccine and vaccination supplies represented the largest share of financial (89%) and economic costs (44%). Per vaccinated HCW financial cost was US$4.58 and economic cost was US$12.08 including vaccine and vaccination supplies (US$0.49 and US$6.76 respectively without vaccine and vaccination supplies). Scenarios with higher coverage, pre-filled syringes, and higher vaccine prices increased total economic and financial costs, although the economic cost per HCW vaccinated decreased with higher coverage as some costs were spread over more HCWs. Across all scenarios, economic costs were <0.07% of Albania's estimated government health expenditure, and <5.07% of Albania's estimated immunization program economic costs. CONCLUSIONS: Cost estimates can help inform decisions about scaling up influenza vaccination for HCWs and other risk groups.