Estimating the health impact of vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 low-income and middle-income countries from 2000 to 2030: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The past two decades have seen expansion of childhood vaccination programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We quantify the health impact of these programmes by estimating the deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted by vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 LMICs between 2000 and 2030. METHODS: 16 independent research groups provided model-based disease burden estimates under a range of vaccination coverage scenarios for ten pathogens: hepatitis B virus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, Streptococcus pneumoniae, rotavirus, rubella, and yellow fever. Using standardised demographic data and vaccine coverage, the impact of vaccination programmes was determined by comparing model estimates from a no-vaccination counterfactual scenario with those from a reported and projected vaccination scenario. We present deaths and DALYs averted between 2000 and 2030 by calendar year and by annual birth cohort. FINDINGS: We estimate that vaccination of the ten selected pathogens will have averted 69 million (95% credible interval 52-88) deaths between 2000 and 2030, of which 37 million (30-48) were averted between 2000 and 2019. From 2000 to 2019, this represents a 45% (36-58) reduction in deaths compared with the counterfactual scenario of no vaccination. Most of this impact is concentrated in a reduction in mortality among children younger than 5 years (57% reduction [52-66]), most notably from measles. Over the lifetime of birth cohorts born between 2000 and 2030, we predict that 120 million (93-150) deaths will be averted by vaccination, of which 58 million (39-76) are due to measles vaccination and 38 million (25-52) are due to hepatitis B vaccination. We estimate that increases in vaccine coverage and introductions of additional vaccines will result in a 72% (59-81) reduction in lifetime mortality in the 2019 birth cohort. INTERPRETATION: Increases in vaccine coverage and the introduction of new vaccines into LMICs have had a major impact in reducing mortality. These public health gains are predicted to increase in coming decades if progress in increasing coverage is sustained. FUNDING: Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Costs of Neisseria meningitidis Group A Disease and Economic Impact of Vaccination in Burkina Faso.

BACKGROUND: Five years since the successful introduction of MenAfriVac in a mass vaccination campaign targeting 1- to 29-year-olds in Burkina Faso, consideration must be given to the optimal strategies for sustaining population protection. This study aims to estimate the economic impact of a range of vaccination strategies in Burkina Faso. METHODS: We performed a cost-of-illness study, comparing different vaccination scenarios in terms of costs to both households and health systems over a 26-year time horizon. These scenarios are (1) reactive vaccination campaign (baseline comparator); (2) preventive vaccination campaign; (3) routine immunization at 9 months; and (4) a combination of routine and an initial catchup campaign of children under 5. Costs were estimated from a literature review, which included unpublished programmatic documents and peer-reviewed publications. The future disease burden for each vaccination strategy was predicted using a dynamic transmission model of group A Neisseria meningitidis. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2014, the total costs associated with the preventive campaign targeting 1- to 29-year-olds with MenAfriVac were similar to the estimated costs of the reactive vaccination strategy (approximately 10 million US dollars [USD]). Between 2015 and 2035, routine immunization with or without a catch-up campaign of 1- to 4-year-olds is cost saving compared with the reactive strategy, both with and without discounting costs and cases. Most of the savings are accrued from lower costs of case management and household costs resulting from a lower burden of disease. After the initial investment in the preventive strategy, 1 USD invested in the routine strategy saves an additional 1.3 USD compared to the reactive strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention strategies using MenAfriVac will be significantly cost saving in Burkina Faso, both for the health system and for households, compared with the reactive strategy. This will protect households from catastrophic expenditures and increase the development capacity of the population.