Risk-based Vaccines and the Need for Risk-based Subnational Vaccination Strategies for Introduction.

BACKGROUND: Most vaccines in the Expanded Program on Immunization are universal childhood vaccines (eg, measles and rotavirus vaccines). Other vaccines such as typhoid conjugate (TCV) and Japanese encephalitis vaccines are risk based and only used in countries where populations are at risk of these diseases. However, strategies to introduce risk-based vaccines are becoming complex due to increasing intracountry variability in disease incidence. There is a need to assess whether subnational vaccine strategies are appropriate. CRITERIA, CHALLENGES, AND BENEFITS: Subnational strategies consider intracountry heterogeneous risk and prioritize vaccination only in those areas that are at risk; there is no intent to introduce the vaccine nationally. The following variables should be considered to determine appropriateness of subnational strategies: disease burden, outbreak potential, treatment availability and costs, cost-effectiveness, and availability of other preventive interventions. We propose criteria for each variable and use a hypothetical country considering TCV introduction to show how criteria are applied to determine if a subnational strategy is appropriate. Challenges include granularity of disease-burden data, political challenges of vaccinating only a portion of a population, and potentially higher costs of introduction. Benefits include targeted reduction of disease burden, increased equity for marginalized populations, and progress on development goals. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of perfect information at the national level, adopting a subnational vaccine strategy can provide country decision makers with an alternative to national vaccine introduction. Given the changing nature of communicable disease burden, subnational vaccination may be a tool to effectively avert mortality and morbidity while maximizing the use of available health and financial resources.

Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Shigella vaccination in 102 low-income and middle-income countries in children aged 5 years or younger: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine impact and cost-effectiveness models have mostly focused on acute burden. Shigella-attributable moderate-to-severe diarrhoea has been shown to be associated with childhood linear growth faltering. Evidence also links less severe diarrhoea to linear growth faltering. As Shigella vaccines are in late stages of clinical development, we aimed to estimate the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccination against Shigella burden that includes stunting and the acute burden attributable to less severe diarrhoea and moderate-to-severe diarrhoea. METHODS: We used a simulation model to estimate Shigella burden and potential vaccination in children aged 5 years or younger from 102 low-income to middle-income countries from 2025 to 2044. Our model included stunting associated with Shigella-related moderate-to-severe diarrhoea and less severe diarrhoea and we explored vaccination impact on health and economic outcomes. FINDINGS: We estimate 109 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 39-204) Shigella-attributable stunting cases and 1·4 million (0·8-2·1) deaths in unvaccinated children over 20 years. We project that Shigella vaccination could avert 43 million (13-92) stunting cases and 590 000 (297 000-983 000) deaths over 20 years. The overall mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$849 (95% uncertainty interval 423-1575; median $790 [IQR 635-1005]) per disability-adjusted life-year averted. Vaccination was most cost-effective in the WHO African region and in low-income countries. Including the burden of Shigella-related less severe diarrhoea improved mean ICERs by 47-48% for these groups and substantially improved ICERs for other regions. INTERPRETATION: Our model suggests that Shigella vaccination would be a cost-effective intervention, with a substantial impact in specific countries and regions. Other regions could potentially benefit upon the inclusion of the burden of Shigella-related stunting and less severe diarrhoea in the analysis. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust.