Financing for pandemic preparedness and response measures: a systematic scoping review.

Objective: To obtain insights into reducing the shortfall in financing for pandemic preparedness and response measures, and reducing the risk of another pandemic with social and economic costs comparable to those of the coronavirus disease. Methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review using the databases ScienceDirect, Scopus, JSTOR, PubMed® and EconLit. We included articles published in any language until 1 August 2023, and excluded grey literature and publications on epidemics. We categorized eligible studies according to the elements of a framework proposed by the World Health Organization Council on the Economy of Health for All: (i) root/structural causes; (ii) social position/foundations; (iii) infrastructure and systems; and (iv) communities, households and individuals. Findings: Of the 188 initially identified articles, we included 60 in our review. Most (53/60) were published after 2020, when academic interest had shifted towards global financing mechanisms. Most (37/60) addressed two or more of the council framework elements. The most frequently addressed element was infrastructure and systems (54/60), discussing topics such as health systems, financial markets and innovation ecosystems. The roots/structural causes were discussed in 25 articles; communities, households and individuals in 22 articles; and social positions/foundations in 11. Conclusion: Our review identified three important gaps: a formal definition of pandemic preparedness and response, impeding the accurate quantification of the financing shortfall; research on the extent to which financing for pandemic preparedness and response has been targeted at the most vulnerable households; and an analysis of specific financial instruments and an evaluation of the feasibility of their implementation.

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.

Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population.

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To support the strategy, the WHO published updated cervical screening guidelines in 2021. To inform this update, we used an established modeling platform, Policy1-Cervix, to evaluate the impact of seven primary screening scenarios across 78 low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the general population of women. Assuming 70% coverage, we found that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening approaches were the most effective and cost-effective, reducing cervical cancer age-standardized mortality rates by 63-67% when offered every 5 years. Strategies involving triaging women before treatment (with 16/18 genotyping, cytology, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or colposcopy) had close-to-similar effectiveness to HPV screening without triage and fewer pre-cancer treatments. Screening with VIA or cytology every 3 years was less effective and less cost-effective than HPV screening every 5 years. Furthermore, VIA generated more than double the number of pre-cancer treatments compared to HPV. In conclusion, primary HPV screening is the most effective, cost-effective and efficient cervical screening option in LMICs. These findings have directly informed WHO's updated cervical screening guidelines for the general population of women, which recommend primary HPV screening in a screen-and-treat or screen-triage-and-treat approach, starting from age 30 years with screening every 5 years or 10 years.

Scoping review of modelling studies assessing the impact of disruptions to essential health services during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Studies assessing the indirect impact of COVID-19 using mathematical models have increased in recent years. This scoping review aims to identify modelling studies assessing the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services caused by COVID-19 and to summarise the characteristics of disruption and the models used to assess the disruptions. METHODS: Eligible studies were included if they used any models to assess the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on any health services. Articles published from January 2020 to December 2022 were identified from PubMed, Embase and CINAHL, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, modelling and healthcare disruptions. Two reviewers independently extracted the data in four domains. A descriptive analysis of the included studies was performed under the format of a narrative report. RESULTS: This scoping review has identified a total of 52 modelling studies that employed several models (n=116) to assess the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services. The majority of the models were simulation models (n=86; 74.1%). Studies covered a wide range of health conditions from infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases. COVID-19 has been reported to disrupt supply of health services, demand for health services and social change affecting factors that influence health. The most common outcomes reported in the studies were clinical outcomes such as mortality and morbidity. Twenty-five studies modelled various mitigation strategies; maintaining critical services by ensuring resources and access to services are found to be a priority for reducing the overall impact. CONCLUSION: A number of models were used to assess the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services on various outcomes. There is a need for collaboration among stakeholders to enhance the usefulness of any modelling. Future studies should consider disparity issues for more comprehensive findings that could ultimately facilitate policy decision-making to maximise benefits to all.

Estimating the delivery costs of COVID-19 vaccination using the COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and deployment Costing (CVIC) tool: the Lao People's Democratic Republic experience.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and deployment Costing (CVIC) tool was developed to assist countries to estimate incremental financial costs to roll out COVID-19 vaccines. This article describes the purposes, assumptions and methods used in the CVIC tool and presents the estimated financial costs of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). METHODS: From March to September 2021, a multidisciplinary team in Lao PDR was involved in the costing exercise of the National Deployment and Vaccination Plan for COVID-19 vaccines to develop potential scenarios and gather inputs using the CVIC tool. Financial costs of introducing COVID-19 vaccines for 3 years from 2021 to 2023 were projected from the government perspective. All costs were collected in 2021 Lao Kip and presented in United States dollar. RESULTS: From 2021 to 2023, the financial cost required to vaccinate all adults in Lao PDR with primary series of COVID-19 vaccines (1 dose for Ad26.COV2.S (recombinant) vaccine and 2 doses for the other vaccine products) is estimated to be US$6.44 million (excluding vaccine costs) and additionally US$1.44 million and US$1.62 million to include teenagers and children, respectively. These translate to financial costs of US$0.79-0.81 per dose, which decrease to US$0.6 when two boosters are introduced to the population. Capital and operational cold-chain costs contributed 15-34% and 15-24% of the total costs in all scenarios, respectively. 17-26% went to data management, monitoring and evaluation, and oversight, and 13-22% to vaccine delivery. CONCLUSIONS: With the CVIC tool, costs of five scenarios were estimated with different target population and booster dose use. These facilitated Lao PDR to refine their strategic planning for COVID-19 vaccine rollout and to decide on the level of external resources needed to mobilize and support outreach services. The results may further inform inputs in cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses and potentially be applied and adjusted in similar low- and middle-income settings.

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.

The Full Value of Vaccine Assessments (FVVA): a framework for assessing and communicating the value of vaccines for investment and introduction decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Several economic obstacles can deter the development and use of vaccines. This can lead to limited product options for some diseases, delays in new product development, and inequitable access to vaccines. Although seemingly distinct, these obstacles are actually interrelated and therefore need to be addressed through a single over-arching strategy encompassing all stakeholders. METHODS: To help overcome these obstacles, we propose a new approach, the Full Value of Vaccines Assessments (FVVA) framework, to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine. The FVVA framework is designed to facilitate alignment across key stakeholders and to enhance decision-making around investment in vaccine development, policy-making, procurement, and introduction, particularly for vaccines intended for use in low- and middle-income countries. RESULTS: The FVVA framework has three key elements. First, to enhance assessment, existing value-assessment methods and tools are adapted to include broader benefits of vaccines as well as opportunity costs borne by stakeholders. Second, to improve decision-making, a deliberative process is required to recognize the agency of stakeholders and to ensure country ownership of decision-making and priority setting. Third, the FVVA framework provides a consistent and evidence-based approach that facilitates communication about the full value of vaccines, helping to enhance alignment and coordination across diverse stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The FVVA framework provides guidance for stakeholders organizing global-level efforts to promote investment in vaccines that are priorities for LMICs. By providing a more holistic view of the benefits of vaccines, its application also has the potential to encourage greater take-up by countries, thereby leading to more sustainable and equitable impacts of vaccines and immunization programmes.

The Cost Analysis of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program in Indonesia.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze and describe the cost of HPV vaccination program in Indonesia. METHODS: This study identified the cost-related HPV vaccination program implemented in Makassar, Manado, and Surabaya cities, Indonesia, according to the previous activities performed. Cost information was collected and analyzed in each specific activity for each cost components, using the HPV vaccination module of the World Health Organization Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing tool. RESULTS: According to the Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing tool, the recurrent costs, both financial and economic costs, dominated the HPV vaccination program costs in Surabaya (US dollars [USD] 264 618; USD 268 724), Makassar (USD 166 852; USD 293 300), and Manado (USD 270 815; USD 270 946), with a total cost of USD 702 285 for financial cost and USD 832 970 for economic cost. Vaccine procurement drives the recurrent cost. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of demonstration program in Surabaya, Makassar, and Manado cities was considerably succeed. Any prediction related to the cost of implementation of HPV vaccination in Indonesia can be calculated and used to advocate regional or national government.

Equity-Informative Economic Evaluations of Vaccines: A Systematic Literature Review.

The Immunization Agenda 2030 prioritizes the populations without access to vaccines. Health equity has been increasingly incorporated into economic evaluations of vaccines to foster equitable access. Robust and standardized methods are needed to evaluate the health equity impact of vaccination programs to ensure monitoring and effective addressing of inequities. However, methods currently in place vary and potentially affect the application of findings to inform policy decision-making. We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Econlit, and the CEA Registry up to 15 December 2022 to identify equity-informative economic evaluations of vaccines. Twenty-one studies were included that performed health equity impact analysis to estimate the distributional impact of vaccines, such as deaths averted and financial risk protection, across equity-relevant subgroups. These studies showed that the introduction of vaccines or improved vaccination coverage resulted in fewer deaths and higher financial risk benefits in subpopulations with higher disease burdens and lower vaccination coverage-particularly poorer income groups and those living in rural areas. In conclusion, methods to incorporate equity have been evolving progressively. Vaccination programs can enhance equity if their design and implementation address existing inequities in order to provide equitable vaccination coverage and achieve health equity.

Delivery cost of the first public sector introduction of typhoid conjugate vaccine in Navi Mumbai, India.

Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC), a local government in Mumbai, India, implemented the first public sector TCV campaign in 2018. This study estimated the delivery costs of this TCV campaign using a Microsoft Excel-based tool based on a micro-costing approach from the government (NMMC) perspective. The campaign's financial (direct expenditures) and economic costs (financial costs plus the monetized value of additional donated or existing items) incremental to the existing immunization program were collected. The data collection methods involved consultations with NMMC staff, reviews of financial and programmatic records of NMMC and the World Health Organization (WHO), and interviews with the health staff of sampled urban health posts (UHPs). Three UHPs were purposively sampled, representing the three dominant residence types in the catchment area: high-rise, slum, and mixed (high-rise and slum) areas. The high-rise area UHP had lower vaccination coverage (47%) compared with the mixed area (71%) and slum area UHPs (76%). The financial cost of vaccine and vaccination supplies (syringes, safety boxes) was $1.87 per dose, and the economic cost was $2.96 per dose in 2018 US dollars. Excluding the vaccine and vaccination supplies cost, the financial delivery cost across the 3 UHPs ranged from $0.37 to $0.53 per dose, and the economic delivery cost ranged from $1.37 to $3.98 per dose, with the highest delivery costs per dose in the high-rise areas. Across all 11 UHPs included in the campaign, the weighted average financial delivery cost was $0.38 per dose, and the economic delivery cost was $1.49 per dose. WHO has recommended the programmatic use of TCV in typhoid-endemic countries, and Gavi has included TCV in its vaccine portfolio. This first costing study of large-scale TCV introduction within a public sector immunization program provides empirical evidence for policymakers, stakeholders, and future vaccine campaign planning.

Maternal immunisation against Group B Streptococcus: A global analysis of health impact and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Group B Streptococcus (GBS) can cause invasive disease (iGBS) in young infants, typically presenting as sepsis or meningitis, and is also associated with stillbirth and preterm birth. GBS vaccines are under development, but their potential health impact and cost-effectiveness have not been assessed globally. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We assessed the health impact and value (using net monetary benefit (NMB), which measures both health and economic effects of vaccination into monetary units) of GBS maternal vaccination in an annual cohort of 140 million pregnant women across 183 countries in 2020. Our analysis uses a decision tree model, incorporating risks of GBS-related health outcomes from an existing Bayesian disease burden model. We extrapolated country-specific GBS-related healthcare costs using data from a previous systematic review and calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost due to infant mortality and long-term disability. We assumed 80% vaccine efficacy against iGBS and stillbirth, following the WHO Preferred Product Characteristics, and coverage based on the proportion of pregnant women receiving at least 4 antenatal visits. One dose was assumed to cost $50 in high-income countries, $15 in upper-middle income countries, and $3.50 in low-/lower-middle-income countries. We estimated NMB using alternative normative assumptions that may be adopted by policymakers. Vaccinating pregnant women could avert 127,000 (95% uncertainty range 63,300 to 248,000) early-onset and 87,300 (38,100 to 209,000) late-onset infant iGBS cases, 31,100 deaths (14,400 to 66,400), 17,900 (6,380 to 49,900) cases of moderate and severe neurodevelopmental impairment, and 23,000 (10,000 to 56,400) stillbirths. A vaccine effective against GBS-associated prematurity might also avert 185,000 (13,500 to 407,000) preterm births. Globally, a 1-dose vaccine programme could cost $1.7 billion but save $385 million in healthcare costs. Estimated global NMB ranged from $1.1 billion ($-0.2 to 3.8 billion) under the least favourable normative assumptions to $17 billion ($9.1 to 31 billion) under the most favourable normative assumptions. The main limitation of our analysis was the scarcity of data to inform some of the model parameters such as those governing health-related quality of life and long-term costs from disability, and how these parameters may vary across country contexts. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that maternal GBS vaccination could have a large impact on infant morbidity and mortality. Globally, a GBS maternal vaccine at reasonable prices is likely to be a cost-effective intervention.

The cost and cost-effectiveness of novel tuberculosis vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is preventable and curable but eliminating it has proven challenging. Safe and effective TB vaccines that can rapidly reduce disease burden are essential for achieving TB elimination. We assessed future costs, cost-savings, and cost-effectiveness of introducing novel TB vaccines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for a range of product characteristics and delivery strategies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed a system of epidemiological and economic models, calibrated to demographic, epidemiological, and health service data in 105 LMICs. For each country, we assessed the likely future course of TB-related outcomes under several vaccine introduction scenarios, compared to a "no-new-vaccine" counterfactual. Vaccine scenarios considered 2 vaccine product profiles (1 targeted at infants, 1 at adolescents/adults), both assumed to prevent progression to active TB. Key economic inputs were derived from the Global Health Cost Consortium, World Health Organization (WHO) patient cost surveys, and the published literature. We estimated the incremental impact of vaccine introduction for a range of health and economic outcomes. In the base-case, we assumed a vaccine price of $4.60 and used a 1× per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) cost-effectiveness threshold (both varied in sensitivity analyses). Vaccine introduction was estimated to require substantial near-term resources, offset by future cost-savings from averted TB burden. From a health system perspective, adolescent/adult vaccination was cost-effective in 64 of 105 LMICs. From a societal perspective (including productivity gains and averted patient costs), adolescent/adult vaccination was projected to be cost-effective in 73 of 105 LMICs and cost-saving in 58 of 105 LMICs, including 96% of countries with higher TB burden. When considering the monetized value of health gains, we estimated that introduction of an adolescent/adult vaccine could produce $283 to 474 billion in economic benefits by 2050. Limited data availability required assumptions and extrapolations that may omit important country-level heterogeneity in epidemiology and costs. CONCLUSIONS: TB vaccination would be highly impactful and cost-effective in most LMICs. Further efforts are needed for future development, adoption, and implementation of novel TB vaccines.

Achieving immunization agenda 2030 coverage targets for 14 pathogens: Projected product and immunization delivery costs for 194 Countries, 2021-2030.

Understanding the level of investment needed for the next decade is vital to achieve the goal of Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030). Through the immunization funder perspective, this study estimates both global and regional economic resources required to achieve IA2030 coverage among 194 WHO member countries from 2021 to 2030, against 14 pathogens: Hepatitis B (Hep B), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), Human papillomavirus (HPV), Japanese encephalitis (JE), Measles, Meningitis A (Men A), Streptococcus pneumoniae, Rotavirus, Rubella, Yellow Fever (YF), Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, and Tuberculosis. The total cost of immunization program, routine vaccine, routine delivery, and non-routine costs (SIA and stockpile) were estimated using WHO coverage forecast for IA2030. Incremental costs of achieving IA2030 for all vaccines and cost per immunized child were also assessed. All costs were calculated for each income and regional level, as well as global level. Scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to account for uncertainty in future vaccine pricing and delivery costs. The total cost of immunization programs is $269.8 billion (95% confidence interval: $247.1 - $311.8), of which $152.8 billion is considered as routine vaccine cost, $114.9 billion is routine delivery cost. Non- routine cost for LICs and LMICs totaled $2.1 billion. The incremental cost of achieving coverage goals after 2020 is $89.9 billion ($27.7-$110.1), with upper-middle income countries requiring the largest increase in investment (56.2% of incremental costs). The average immunization cost per child across all countries is $192.6. Scenario analysis using the minimum and maximum vaccines price for fully self-financing countries resulted in total costs ranging from $193.6 and $552.2 billion. The immunization program cost among 194 WHO member countries is expected to increase during this decade. The strategy for resource mobilization and increasing investment from country governments and donors are essential to achieving IA2030 coverage and ensuring sustainable immunization programs.

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.

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.

Understanding the public health value and defining preferred product characteristics for therapeutic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: World Health Organization consultations, October 2021-March 2022.

The World Health Organization (WHO) global strategy to eliminate cervical cancer (CxCa) could result in >62 million lives saved by 2120 if strategy targets are reached and maintained: 90% of adolescent girls receiving prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, 70% of women receiving twice-lifetime cervical cancer screening, and 90% of cervical pre-cancer lesions and invasive CxCa treated. However, the cost and complexity of CxCa screening and treatment approaches has hampered scale-up, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and new approaches are needed. Therapeutic HPV vaccines (TxV), which could clear persistent high-risk HPV infection and/or cause regression of pre-cancerous lesions, are in early clinical development and might offer one such approach. During October 2021 to March 2022, WHO, in collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, convened a series of global expert consultations to lay the groundwork for understanding the potential value of TxV in the context of current CxCa prevention efforts and for defining WHO preferred product characteristics (PPCs) for TxV. WHO PPCs describe preferences for vaccine attributes that would help optimize vaccine value and use in meeting the global public health need. This paper reports on the main discussion points and findings from the expert consultations. Experts identified several ways in which TxV might address challenges in current CxCa prevention programmes, but emphasized that the potential value of TxV will depend on their degree of efficacy and how quickly they can be developed and implemented relative to ongoing scale-up of existing interventions. Consultation participants also discussed potential use-cases for TxV, important PPC considerations (e.g., vaccine indications, target populations, and delivery strategies), and critical modelling needs for predicting TxV impact and cost-effectiveness.